CP if there's one thing I'd like to establish here it is that the originalist position does not in any way justify such behavior.

Then it's got the wrong name.

The original intent of the "founding fathers" would be considered a police state nowadays.

I'll believe originalists are serious when they explain that ninth amendment. 

What do you see, O, which illustrates this disaster?

Thomas's life. In particular, his selling his own sister down the river and refusal to enforce EEOC rules when he was its head, even before the enforcement laws were gutted.

Any chance it's a purely imaginary disaster?

No. 

Don't try to hold this...person up as an example fpr Black people. It only shows you have no intent of understanding what we say, because we...and Black American as a whole...have been very clear on our view of this matter. 

Before this thread goes any further off the tracks into what frankly strike me as bizarre de-evolutionary originalist speculations, a philological analysis of this uniquely peculiar notion of "succeeding" seems warranted;

Clarance Thomas represents success for black people.

1 a : to come next after another in office or position or in possession of an estate; especially : to inherit sovereignty, rank, or title b : to follow after another in order

Whether we look at the design of American law, or, the way in which individual culpability for participation in American privilege is absolved into the anonymizing schmear of corporate or institutional proxy, by the above definition, it appears to me that a black man is structurally constrained to the practice of hypocrisy as the indispensable key to success. I would add that repudiation of blackness appears as a corollary prerequisite to success in the American system, as well. Am I missing something here?

"Any chance it's a purely imaginary disaster?"

Any chance you could beg, borrow, buy or steal a clue?

P6, cnulan, PT, ConPermiso, everybody in this thread has taken your ass to the woodshed on this. But like Bush with a bottle of Jack Daniels, you just won't let go. At best yours is a classic case of "don't believe shit stinks." At worst, you're playng the game of rabbit on the dog track again. While you may truly be as dense as your comments often suggest, and while for the most part I'm willing to give cognitively challenged folks a break, you are picking the scab off a deep wound in the collective psyche of black America. If I were you, I'd find another subject with which to display your lack of comprehension. 

"I would add that repudiation of blackness appears as a corollary prerequisite to success in the American system, as well."

I don't think that a repudiation of blackness is a prerequisite to success in America. I do think that an ability to tolerate more than your fair share of bullshit that will almost certainly come your way because you are black is a required quality. As the great Bert Williams once observed, "A man born of a black woman is bound to see dark days."

I think that if one is offered up for public consumption as both a successful black American and one whom other black Americans should hold in high esteem and emulate then you have to be beyond reproach as far as the masses of black people are concerned especially if white folks are promoting your elevation. Br. Thomas did not fit that bill. It would have been far better for George I to have simply appointed him and skip the folderol about Thurgood Marshall etc.

you are picking the scab off a deep wound in the collective psyche of black America.

seems to me DW has rather nicely - if inadvertantly - limned the modus operandi of the entire Conservative Brotherhood. I for one believe that's exactly on point with regard to every single kneegrow who prioritizes American success over black success...,

I think that if one is offered up for public consumption as both a successful black American and one whom other black Americans should hold in high esteem

deftly and gently as this was put, doesn't it suggest an irreconcilable paradox at its core? the late Johnie Cochran might serve as an example of one who had reconciled the irreconcilable, but at the price of being reviled in the mainstream

at the price of being reviled in the mainstream

Like I said, the crews the mainstream most feared were those that simply spoke the truth.

Now, in Johnny's case he had cash to the point that the manstream had to give it up anyway. It may be a little foul but I like grudging respect better than automatic respect.

Yes, but all paradoxes are by definition irreconcilable. If Cochran, for example, had gotten Patty Hearst cleared from shooting up a bank with an automatic weapon as she was most certainly videotaped doing then the mainstream would have toasted him as a shrewd and crafty attorney. The stature of Mark Geragos has not diminished one bit as a result of his efforts on behalf of Stephen Peterson who was charged with murdering his pregnant wife Laci Peterson. Cochran represents an accused double murderer (off-topic: I never doubted that O.J. did it) and white folks, for the most part, start describing him in terms that black people, including me, correctly interpret as akin to calling him a slick, unprincipled nigger. This is how it is moving west. The entire landscape is mined with paradoxes.

"Conservative Brotherhood?"

Sounds like the kneegro auxillary to the KKK. What do they do, serve finger sandwiches and branch water at lynchings and cross-burnings?

And I agree with you about the scab-picking, C. Those kneegros who prioritize American success over black success, like the Tomass Clarence's and that ilk, offend the memory of our ancestors upon whose blood, sweat and tears AMERICAN success was built.

"The entire landscape is mined with paradoxes."

Paradoxes replete with hypocrisy.

This morning on Good Morning America, Charlie Gibson had Bill O'Reilly on talking about Bush's approval ratings being in the toilet. As if it wasn't bad enough having this retch fest occur during the breakfast hour, Gibson ended the segment by showing O'Reilly's children's book and touting it to the viewers as a must read. Now, Bill O'Reilly recently settled a sexual harrassment lawsuit filed against him by a former employee. In the lead up to the settlement, the plaintiff released transcripts from telephone conversations she secretly recorded with O'Reilly. On the tapes O'Reilly talks about having sex with two "young" prostitutes in Thailand, and other sexual escapades on a trip he made to Italy for an audience with the Pope.

Now here's the point... That this married father of two continues to host his scumfest of a show on Fox is no surprise. But to have this serial adulterer and possible pedophile feted on a top network morning show further illustrates the contrast between Johnny Cochran and his public reception after the OJ verdict versus Mark Geragos and the Scott Peterson trial.

Even white scoundrels and felons (G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Charles Colson) receive a pass from the American public. But an upstanding black person, a black person with an unblemished record, will be vilified and ostracized instantly if he or she by word or deed crosses the indelible line that separates accomodating give-massa-his-due kneegros from uppity my-middle-name-is-Kunta Kinte black folks.

American Culture is Oppositional to Christian Culture

Is it possible that Tomass' hypocrisy goes hand-in-hand with apostasy?

Black Culture instantiated Christian Culture

Kinda depends on how much faith one has in blackness, doesn't it?

DW, I had made up my mind to stay out of this thread. But then you had to go and link to one of Thomas' opinions to back up your point. Now I can't help myself.

In Hudson v. McMillan, the question before the court was whether the Fifth Circuit applied the right standard in overturning a lower court. The appeals court ruled that Hudson's injuries weren't serious, so he couldn't make an Eighth Amendment claim.

At no point in his dissent does Thomas even bother with this question. He argues at length (sometimes ingeniously) that the seven justices in the majority made a bad ruling. But on the question itself, Thomas simply asserts that since the beating given to Hudson didn't cause any "serious" injuries, previous precedent didn't apply.

(All that originalist claptrap in the first section of his dissent is just for show. He never brings it up again.)

Are you with me so far? The precedent in previous cases said one of the tests for an Eighth Amendment violation was a "significant deprivation." Thomas decides--without explanation--that "significant deprivation" is the same thing as "serious injury."

So much for his "well-reasoned" opinions.

Now let me catch up with where the rest of this thread has gone.

Thomas grew up poor. As a young man, he knew first-hand the experiences of the most disadvantaged of black Americans. Even if he had no personal contact with law enforcement, he had to have heard accounts of how black citizens are treated within the justice system.

Even with that knowledge, Thomas rules that the Constitution essentially sides with the prison supervisor--you know, the brute who knew an inmate was being beaten for no reason and said: "Don't have too much fun now."

Thomas argues that the precedents of Eighth Amendment decisions (not an originalist interpretation) declare that as long as the jailers "don't have too much fun" and cause serious injury, the Constitution is not offended.

You tell me, DW. What does that decision mean for black inmates?

I have no idea what drives Justice Thomas (well, OK, I do, but nothing I can prove). What I can tell you is that his "well-reasoned" opinions would put every inmate of the justice system at risk, especially those who are subject to the racial animosity of jailers.

"What I can tell you is that his "well-reasoned" opinions would put every inmate of the justice system at risk, especially those who are subject to the racial animosity of jailers."

QB, I think you drove a stake through the heart of the Thomas'-opinions-are-well-reasoned argument and nailed that coffin shut. But DW has a Frankenstein laboratory in his basement. He's got the cables hooked up to the cadaver and the generator running full speed. He'll come up with another "monstrous" defense of the indefensible. Poor fella can't seem to help himself.

DW has a Frankenstein laboratory in his basement.

Haw!

It's allliiiiiiive!

(off-topic: I never doubted that O.J. did it)

For the record: I never beefed about Johnny Cochran.  He was a hell of a lawyer.