Skip to main content

Americans today are too sensitive about race, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a gathering of college students in Florida on Tuesday.

 

Speaking at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., Thomas, the second black justice to serve on the court, lamented what he considers a society that is more “conscious” of racial differences than it was when he grew up in segregated Georgia in the days before — and during — the civil rights era.

“My sadness is that we are probably today more race and difference-conscious than I was in the 1960s when I went to school. To my knowledge, I was the first black kid in Savannah, Georgia, to go to a white school. Rarely did the issue of race come up,” Thomas said during a chapel service hosted by the nondenominational Christian university. “Now, name a day it doesn’t come up. Differences in race, differences in sex, somebody doesn’t look at you right, somebody says something. Everybody is sensitive. If I had been as sensitive as that in the 1960s, I’d still be in Savannah. Every person in this room has endured a slight. Every person. Somebody has said something that has hurt their feelings or did something to them — left them out.

“That’s a part of the deal,” he added.

Thomas spent his childhood in a place and time in which businesses and government services were legally segregated. In his 2007 memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," he described his experience growing up as an African-American Catholic in Georgia during the Jim Crow era. “I was a two-fer for the Klan,” he said.

Thomas moved north from Georgia and graduated from Yale Law School in 1974. He went on to a successful judicial career that took him all the way to the Supreme Court. Thomas’ views on constitutional issues usually put him on the conservative side of the court, where he has penned opinions intended to rein in affirmative-action laws and overhaul a section of the Civil Rights Act that requires states with histories of discrimination to seek approval from the federal government before altering voting policies.

Throughout his career, Thomas said, he has experienced more instances of discrimination and poor treatment in the North than the South.

“The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites. The absolute worst I have ever been treated,” Thomas said. “The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

As one of six Catholics on the court, Thomas also addressed the role his faith plays in his work as a justice.

“I quite frankly don’t know how you do these hard jobs without some faith. I don’t know. Other people can come to you and explain it to you. I have no idea," he said. "I don’t know how an oath becomes meaningful unless you have faith. Because at the end you say, ‘So help me God.’ And a promise to God is different from a promise to anyone else."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/clarence...-race-194104252.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Affirmative action was of substantial assistance in propelling Thomas to the success he enjoys, yet he cringes to think that any other minority might benefit via the same treatment.

 

 As observed by Michael Fletcher, Thomas' biographer:

 

<<<"His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography," said Michael Fletcher, co-author of Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. He's arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way.">>>

 

Thomas' recent vote (with a narrow majority--the other wingers on the Court) on gutting the Voting Rights Act has impelled several states to devise various devious strategies for artificially skewing the vote and is one of the more shameful, and most widely-criticized, Supreme Court decisions of recent times.

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:

Affirmative action was of substantial assistance in propelling Thomas to the success he enjoys, yet he cringes to think that any other minority might benefit via the same treatment.

 

 As observed by Michael Fletcher, Thomas' biographer:

 

<<<"His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography," said Michael Fletcher, co-author of Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. He's arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way.">>>

 

Thomas' recent vote (with a narrow majority--the other wingers on the Court) on gutting the Voting Rights Act has impelled several states to devise various devious strategies for artificially skewing the vote and is one of the more shameful, and most widely-criticized, Supreme Court decisions of recent times.

 

Please explain just HOW the Voting rights Act was 'gutted'.... I'm waiting.

Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Affirmative action was of substantial assistance in propelling Thomas to the success he enjoys, yet he cringes to think that any other minority might benefit via the same treatment.

 

 As observed by Michael Fletcher, Thomas' biographer:

 

<<<"His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography," said Michael Fletcher, co-author of Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. He's arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way.">>>

 

Thomas' recent vote (with a narrow majority--the other wingers on the Court) on gutting the Voting Rights Act has impelled several states to devise various devious strategies for artificially skewing the vote and is one of the more shameful, and most widely-criticized, Supreme Court decisions of recent times.

 

Please explain just HOW the Voting rights Act was 'gutted'.... I'm waiting.

___

It was gutted by the Supreme Court's decision that nullified provisions for Justice Department approval of state changes that could adversely affect voter participation in states with an established history of selective voter suppression.  Shortly after the Court's ruling, numerous GOP-controlled state legislatures proceeded to impose new and harsh requirements upon voters, transparenly aimed at discouraging voting by certain minorities traditionally favoring Democrats.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/...hts-act-still-needed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...ons-new-pretext.html

 

"When Don Yelton, a Republican official in North Carolina, recently told “The Daily Show” that if the state’s strict new voter-ID law “hurts a bunch of lazy blacks,” then “so be it,” it was easy to see old-fashioned Southern racism. But just as significant was Mr. Yelton’s saying that the new law “is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.”

 

It is happening; it is real;and it would not have happened without the Court having ruled as it did.

 

Last edited by Contendah

List of historically black colleges and universities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

This list of Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) lists institutions of higher education in the United States that were established before 1964 with the intention of serving the black community.

 

A search for a list of white colleges didn't produce any. It did however provide a link for the list of black colleges.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Affirmative action was of substantial assistance in propelling Thomas to the success he enjoys, yet he cringes to think that any other minority might benefit via the same treatment.

 

 As observed by Michael Fletcher, Thomas' biographer:

 

<<<"His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography," said Michael Fletcher, co-author of Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. He's arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way.">>>

 

Thomas' recent vote (with a narrow majority--the other wingers on the Court) on gutting the Voting Rights Act has impelled several states to devise various devious strategies for artificially skewing the vote and is one of the more shameful, and most widely-criticized, Supreme Court decisions of recent times.

 

Please explain just HOW the Voting rights Act was 'gutted'.... I'm waiting.

___

It was gutted by the Supreme Court's decision that nullified provisions for Justice Department approval of state changes that could adversely affect voter participation in states with an established history of selective voter suppression.  Shortly after the Court's ruling, numerous GOP-controlled state legislatures proceeded to impose new and harsh requirements upon voters, transparenly aimed at discouraging voting by certain minorities traditionally favoring Democrats.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/...hts-act-still-needed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...ons-new-pretext.html

 

"When Don Yelton, a Republican official in North Carolina, recently told “The Daily Show” that if the state’s strict new voter-ID law “hurts a bunch of lazy blacks,” then “so be it,” it was easy to see old-fashioned Southern racism. But just as significant was Mr. Yelton’s saying that the new law “is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.”

 

It is happening; it is real;and it would not have happened without the Court having ruled as it did.

 

_____________________________

Requiring IDs for voters is the most essential of internal controls.  Progressives claim little voter fraud, which one can't claim without the ability to check for fraud.  Rather like the lawyers at SEC claiming old Bernie Madoff was an honest man.  Never sent an auditor to check.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by Contendah:

Affirmative action was of substantial assistance in propelling Thomas to the success he enjoys, yet he cringes to think that any other minority might benefit via the same treatment.

 

 As observed by Michael Fletcher, Thomas' biographer:

 

<<<"His entire judicial philosophy is at war with his own biography," said Michael Fletcher, co-author of Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. He's arguably benefited from affirmative action every step of the way.">>>

 

Thomas' recent vote (with a narrow majority--the other wingers on the Court) on gutting the Voting Rights Act has impelled several states to devise various devious strategies for artificially skewing the vote and is one of the more shameful, and most widely-criticized, Supreme Court decisions of recent times.

 

Please explain just HOW the Voting rights Act was 'gutted'.... I'm waiting.

___

It was gutted by the Supreme Court's decision that nullified provisions for Justice Department approval of state changes that could adversely affect voter participation in states with an established history of selective voter suppression.  Shortly after the Court's ruling, numerous GOP-controlled state legislatures proceeded to impose new and harsh requirements upon voters, transparenly aimed at discouraging voting by certain minorities traditionally favoring Democrats.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/...hts-act-still-needed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11...ons-new-pretext.html

 

"When Don Yelton, a Republican official in North Carolina, recently told “The Daily Show” that if the state’s strict new voter-ID law “hurts a bunch of lazy blacks,” then “so be it,” it was easy to see old-fashioned Southern racism. But just as significant was Mr. Yelton’s saying that the new law “is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.”

 

It is happening; it is real;and it would not have happened without the Court having ruled as it did.

 

_____________________________

Requiring IDs for voters is the most essential of internal controls.  Progressives claim little voter fraud, which one can't claim without the ability to check for fraud.  Rather like the lawyers at SEC claiming old Bernie Madoff was an honest man.  Never sent an auditor to check.

 

___

Voter  ID is only one element of the issue. Strategic restructuring of voting hours and shortening early voting periods and gerrymandering of voting districts are all parts of the strategy being used to skew voter participation  in favor of the GOP.

yep, exactly like never sending anyone to check.. except boosh checked.. for about 5 years... now, what's the next move in the rt. wingnut playbook.. they've already admitted the new 'voter id laws' were designed to discourage democrats from voting. they've already admitted to gerrymandering with their redistricting swing states. tell us... what's the next talking point.

 

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that dog and Best are always bringing up race issues and then claiming that the left won't stop talking about race? 

 

I think most people can see the real issue here, right? 

 

Well, maybe I am expecting too much for the predominately right wingers on this forum. In case you don't understand, its usually those that are most guilty of something, or that have deep underlying feelings about an issue that can't stop talking about it, or railing against it. Sorta like many homophobes. They are usually closet cases that hate themselves for their inner most feelings. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×