Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, October 22, 2007
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Clarence Thomas' very American story
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Futurist John Naisbitt, in his most recent book, talks about trends and leadership.

He notes the price that genuine leaders often pay, evoking envy and resentment, because they refuse to be defined by "prevailing values, rules, and expectations" in their pursuit of higher goals.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a case study of the phenomenon. He is a far too humble man to describe himself in these terms. But this is the case.

Sixteen years after being sworn in to the nation's highest court, Thomas shares his story in a new autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son." It is a highly readable and quintessentially American story of persistence, idealism, suffering, faith, and success.

Regarding the dangers and pitfalls of being too far ahead of the rest, Naisbitt quotes former New York governor and failed presidential candidate Al Smith: "Don't get so far ahead of the parade that people don't know you're in it."

This has been the challenge for black conservatives. It is a lonely business to get blacks to appreciate that the values and principles of individual liberty, which have made this country so great, are as relevant and applicable to them as to everyone else.

Moreover, and perhaps tragically ironic, it is a lonely business to convince blacks that they are equally capable of living by and benefiting from these great principles. That indeed, for every black American to realize his or her potential, they must.

Clarence Thomas believes these things, and as result he has paid a price. All black conservatives have been out ahead of the parade. But Thomas is a particularly high profile one, with an important job. So he has paid a particularly high price.

The personal story that Thomas tells in his book shows that he is everything that his enemies would have us believe he is not.

First and foremost, it is clear that the plight of blacks in America has been his central, driving lifetime concern. Liberals, black and white, don't like his answers. So they would like us to believe that because his answers are not theirs, it means he really doesn't care. The book shows the opposite.

Second, liberals would have us believe that he is a crude opportunist. In fact, his life has been defined by a persistent idealism. This is not a story like that of Bill Clinton, who decided he wanted to be president of the United States when he was still having cookies and milk at his mother's kitchen table.

Thomas' journey, from poverty in rural Georgia to the United States Supreme Court, proceeded in unplanned chapters, each one emerging from the one before as a result of his assessment of what the right thing was to do at that moment. This was no career planning exercise, but rather a hard fought crystallization of an inner sense of mission and ideals.

Third, for whatever reason, it is beyond the ken of any liberal to accept that a black individual can arrive at conservative principles as a result of his or her own struggles and deliberative processes. This is so unfathomable to liberals, black and white, that they are convinced that behind every black conservative is a white Republican who has made it worth his or her while. This is, of course, obscene.

Thomas' conservatism began to formally crystallize, from his own thoughts and experiences, when he was an undergraduate at Holy Cross. This was long before he had anything to do with the Republican Party.

In fact, his real grounding in the values of self reliance, hard work, and faith started with his grandfather, Daddy, who raised him, and for whom he names the book.

Daddy started his own fuel oil business when he decided that a man shouldn't work for someone else. He raised his grandson with an iron hand, and taught him that "Any job worth doing is worth doing right."

Needless to say, the book gives an account of Thomas' confirmation hearings and the tawdry and sickening Anita Hill affair. That an unsubstantiated accusation, submitted in confidence to a Senate committee, and then leaked to the press, can be transformed into a carnival-like public hearing that can threaten and defame a Supreme Court nominee, should concern every citizen about the state of our government.

Struggles and suffering are not without purpose. The parade is starting to catch up to Clarence Thomas and black conservatism is taking root. Ironically, simultaneous with the appearance of Thomas' book is Bill Cosby's new book, in which Cosby argues it is important for blacks to replace dependence and victimization with personal responsibility.

"My Grandfather's Son" is an important story by an important American. It should be read.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Indeed....
I have read Justice Thomas's book, and it is elegant.

Wow
My wife got Colin Powell's book, autographed at a book signing. I wonder if I can get Clarence Thomas' book, autographed?

Love the book
...and admire Justice Thomas. Click my alias and read the letter I wrote to him.

Great book
I generally read 3 books a week of high quality and this is one of the best. A sincere telling of the dignity of black men of his Grandfathers era is worth the price of the book. Then throw in the history of a black man rising above prejudice of not only white people but also people of color and Hispanic. It will make you think differently of the NAACP if you hadn't already. I totally believe his telling of the truth about Anita Hill that damaged his reputation for ever, what cruel undertaking. This is one giant of a man influenced by giant people who were not necessarily well educated but sure knew what was important to pass on to the next generation. Pity that is in little evidence today.

As usual send hate mail to barrym@tds.net or visit my pitiful blog

Dolly Llama
I am in a contentious mood this morning for some reason, I usually don't get involved in arguments. I must agree on one point the election of 2000 was a spectacle and not a pretty thing to watch. Although I must say I am happy with the outcome, but I can see how there would be some embittered loyalist.

What you have is selective visions of activism. For several years the activist Jurist with O’connor as the swing vote really made some bad decision that will be with our country for years to come. Yes a justice is suppose to be Apolitical but until that happens, we are going to have sides and just because your side lost on that one don’t cry because I think your in the lead.

Just because Justice Thomas felt unworthy at the time, which we all do even when we are quite qualified, he just expressed it and now your going to throw indecision about a new job in his face, how charitable of you. Even John Adams felt un worthy as he traveled to Philadelphia for the first time. The Architect of the Revolution, had picked many of the people instrumental in the success of our country.

I guess I am in a grumpy mood this morning, I have to stop reading the blogs today.

Congrats Dolly,
you have now ascended the heights of stupid, irrelevant trolls. You are now in the top 1 percentile. Have you read the book? Do you dislike blacks in general, or just conservative blacks? By the way, Bush has been president for almost two complete terms like it or not. No matter how much you scream and stomp your feet, that is just the case. And frankly, I wouldn't care if the right had pulled a standard op of the left of letting dead, convicted, underage, or illegals vote just so long as that scambag Gore didn't get to play his games with us on an even larger field. Hey, Dolly baby, can you imagine a political party going out of its way to exclude absentee ballots from military members? Gosh, me neither.

Dolly Llama 6:53am
After reading your comments, it is imperative for me to list your characteristics:

1. You are a racist.

2. You are a bigot.

3. You are anti-american.

4. You are stupid.

5. You are a liberal. (Oh! Wait!, this is all I needed to list as it covers everything else.)

Re 2000

One more time,
If albert Gore could have carried his OWN state, (those who knew him best )all of this screaming would be moot.

quickie quiz
Q: Who said it?

In an interview our mystery person said the following in reference to affirmative action:

"There are universites in California that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian-Americans".

A: Bill Clinton, in an interview with the Sacramento Bee in 1995.

Source: Chicago Tribune, June 23, 1997. Charles Krauthammer 'Ok, Let's Finally Talk Honestly About Race'

Dolly needs to be recloned
Dolly needs to be recloned only this time use some brain cells.

I find it amusing that it is ok for the Florida Supreme Court to change rules in the middle of the game.

They did the same thing in New Jersey and in St. Louis.

The biggest problem that Republicans have had in the nomination of Judges is that they compromise.

The Kelo decision along with many other bad decisions are all the result of trying to please the Swimmer and Chuck the Schmuck.

Holy moly, Dolly,
I don't have a law degree, and according to most of you who do, that makes me a lesser person.

I gotta tell you, Dolly, and this is an admission I'm not necessarily proud of, I consider many of you to be a significant portion of the major problems this country's people have to deal with. In other words, there are many of you lawyers out there for whom I have no respect. Ergo, the fact that you have a law degree means zilch to me.

By the way, I don't like whiskey.

Dolly Llama: Wow!
"I can think of few instances of failing to judge in an impartial manner more flagrant than the majority decision in Bush v. Gore. In that case, Thomas defecated on stare decisis and wiped his pathetic, lying derriere with the Constitution: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities," Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), because, if they applied the rule they had to invent here generally, it would result in all sorts of foreseeable consequences that the Justices who voted for it would not like."

Wow. It’s obvious that you’re a professional word manipulator/sophist (w/ a minimal acquaintance w/ LATIN) who thinks that because he/she can streamline or obfuscate the “process” at will that makes you more intelligent than we mere mortals. Quite frankly I doubt that you’re able to employ a PC in any fashion beyond “word processor”. Please call me a “technocratic snob” if you will. That being said, your convenient argument WRT the sacrosanct nature of the US Constitution rings hollow given the Far-left’s perpetual lack of respect for the fundamental civil rights of minimally franchised white & male citizens: a) 13th Amendment vs. involuntary servitude: Men being held in prison indefinitely after not paying court-ordered child support b) 14th Amendment: Civil Rights vs. institutional discrimination (anti- white male affirmative action/quotas) & Right of Due process vs. Sexist “Violence Against Women Act” (Men automatically assumed to be guilty when accused of “domestic violence” or “rape”.)

I find your selective legal indignation hypocritical at best. But then again, overt sophists are the generally intellectually-dishonest hypocrites by nature.



Folks
Don't waste time reading and responding to Dolly. If he spoke in reasonable and intelligent terms about his views which are contrary to most of us here, he would be a worthy opponent. But he isn't worthy. Stop reading and responding. I have.

Dolly Llama writes: Knowing your subject
The subject today, Dolly, is Clarence Thomas' ascending from the humblest of backgrounds to the highest court in the land. You obviously disagree with him which is fine. But give the man his due and give Star Parker the respect she is due by responding to the substance of her article.

My guess is, you're a racist who is using the occasion of a black columnist writing about a black associate justice as a springboard to spew your hatred. It's a free country; go for it.

You're obviously well-trained in your use of the English language but racism is ugly no matter how pretty your words are...

Alright Dolly,
way to go. Good comeback. Uh, let's see; I'm not a lawyer, therefor, I probably should not comment on WHAT? Your slimeing of Justice Thomas? If you hasten back to my original comment, you'll see that I really didn't respond so much to your legalese regarding the court decision as I did to your dismay at the result. By the way, was Thomas the only justice to vote the way he did? and if so, how the hell did that make him a majority? Was he the only one to 'wipe his pathetic, lying derriere' on the constitution? (We non-lawyers would have phrased that differently.)

You will, I hope, notice that not once have I brought up any racial insinuations regarding you or your comments. I just think that, like so, so many lawyers, you are terribly wrong in the political affiliation you have chosen. I have fought for you right to do so, so keep on keepin' on.

Dotty Lamo
"ShEEEEEEEsh, Ghost! Free-floating insults are not a substitute for argument (well, that may not be true in your district)...."

I haven't seen this word in years: "ShEEEEEEEsh".

When you give make some intelligent comments; then you will get some intelligent debate.

You have so far proven that you are nothing more than a "Liberal Troll" who is being paid to give the standard Dumocrat "Talking Points".

By the way, you would probably not like my "district". You would be held accountable, by both Black and White, for speaking lies and falsehoods about a Supreme Court Justice who will be remembered by History as a man equal to Dr. Martin Luther King. A man who humbly believes that he is not worthy; but does everything in his power to be worthy of the tasks he has undertaken.

Hello,Dolly
Let me see if an untrained eye can see. The Florida court took it upon themselves to start making law. First they had to set aside the Legislature. Certifying the vote, then counting the ballots. wait, not enough, just count them in the counties strongly controlled by like minded people and above all do not count the military vote. Just what is the supreme court to do in a Federal election?

Dolly Llama is a racist - redux
Dolly, your point about Thomas violating his oath is a red herring. Therefore your underlying motivation is most likely racist. There is no other logical explanation.

Examine your soul, brother; your racism is showing.

Nobility
Shame on you bringing to light facts about that election.Don't you know that libs like Dilly don't like facts. GOD BLESS AMERICA

dolly llama
you are not a racist; you are a sophist. illegitmate means. I guess you would forgo torture to save your mother. Two can play the game.

In the end, voter recount by all the newspaper, found Bush to be the winner.

The court decision had an end of resolving it quickly for the benefit of the country; it turned that the result was correct as indicated above.


We had a similar situation in the election in the contested election of 1976 between hayes and tilden. There a devil's bargain was struck which removed the troops from the south as a sop the neananderthal south and allowing a republican to be president. This only postponed the day of reckoning which gave us the present racial mess.

1876 was wrong in its conseqences; 2000 was right.

Perfection is in heaven.


I'm confused
What financial interest could Clarence Thomas possible have in getting Bush elected?

I know about as much about constitutional law as I do about how it was growing up Black in the South in the early 50's. I was just saying after all the activism coming from the left, how can you cry about a couple that may or may not have come a little more from the right. Sounds pretty logical to me. Why single anyone out, he was confirmed by Congress gives him the same right to be there as anyother judge appointed.

I really don’t want to address this to the person that brought it up, because I really think their vision is clouded, but if someone moderate thinks they know, I am reasonable, please tell me. I am not going to check in here again, so email me barrym@tds.net. If I don’t hear anything I am assuming nobody else has a clue where the guy is coming from.

For some reason CT is a lightening rod, I truly don’t understand why that is. There certainly were more obviously conservative judges, Scalia comes to mind and I don’t think I have ever heard a word about him. Not that I think you should, why would Thomas have a financial gain and Scalia wouldn’t. I guess it is like my boss use to say years ago when I was in the car business, keep throwing it up against the wall and some of it will stick, he was referring to number of people that couldn’t get financed that would fall off the wall. Meaning keep those accusations coming and some of them will stick whether they are true or not.

I sure wish I had never seen this article this morning or made a comment, at the time it seemed harmless enough. Maybe I will go back to reading and let you guys fight it out, not my thing.

Dotty Lamo
Let's take my "Talking Points" of 8:11am, and use your own words, to prove these points.

I said that you were a "(1) racist" and a "(2) bigot".

You said, at 6:53am, "In that case, Thomas defecated on stare decisis and wiped his pathetic, lying derriere with the Constitution:". You further referenced the Dred Scott decision (a horrible decision made by a Supreme Court of over 100 years ago). This was to imply that Justice Thomas'decision was "one of the worst decisions ever given by the US Supreme Court", even measured by the Dred Scott Decision.

You made clear reference to a decision decided by the Supreme Court concerning slavery and a black man who sued for his freedom. You clearly said that Justice Thomas: "wiped his pathetic, lying derriere with the Constitution".

Justice Thomas is black. The reference is clear: You are telling Justice Thomas to stop thinking for himself and to remember who his betters are.

If that isn't being racist and/or a bigot, than you probably are the "Dolly Llama".


Dolly Llama writes 22, 2007 8:46 AM

Thomas defecated on stare decisis and wiped his pathetic, lying derriere with the Constitution:

The definition of "judicial activism" that I use is whether the judge would rule the other way, if the parties' interests were reversed. In Bush v. Gore, it is obvious that they would have, and that Justice Thomas had a personal financial interest in the case (which should have induced him to recuse himself, if he actually paid anything more than lip service to his oath).

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Can you cite another case for stare decisis where one candidate demanded that 5 of his party controlled precincts each use a different method to tally votes?

What evidence do you have that the 7 judges would have voted the other way if it was Bush who had selected 5 precincts and demand each count votes differently?

Can you reveal the financial interest Thomas had in telling FL they must count all votes under one method?

I ask these questions because I have noticed in the past you get your legal theory from The Daily Koz

Dotty Lamo; Part 2
If you are a racist and a bigot (as I proved in my post of 1:52pm); then by definition (and the Constitution and all the amendments to it), you are "(3) anti-american".

I will admit that my (4) point (that you are "stupid") is only my personal opinion.

My (5) point that you are a "Liberal" is self-evident. Only a Liberal would use the points and comments you have used. "God Forbid, that some black man would try to get off the Liberal Plantation."

Hmm
Judge Thomas strikes me as a somewhat tragic figure. I get the impression that there is a sadness underneath or maybe unresolved issues that manifest in a kind of self hatred. I think it is the struggle to understand him that leads some liberals to make accusations like the ones Star listed. In a similar vein, I think Star is taking the conservative path to the same misunderstanding. Clarence Thomas strikes me a very complicated man. Even his book fails to provide more than hints and quick peaks at the man’s heart and soul. Star is right and wrong at the same time. We all pay a price for the things we believe and sometimes it’s high. And yes, it is “beyond the ken of [some] liberals to accept that a black individual can arrive at conservative principles as a result of his or her own struggles and deliberative processes”. But it is also beyond the ken of some conservatives to believe that some people arrive at liberal principles in a similar manner.


Arguments get more Ludicrous
I don't believe I got suckered into this. There was no administration, there was only a candidate hoping to get elected, 2002 remember not 2004. I get it, so some shadowy charter makes a Deep throat kind of meeting with Mrs. Thomas and says, if you get your husband to vote our way you can have a job. And JFK was really killed by his brother's hit man so he could be come President. All makes sense to me.

I guess this is how the game is played after a while you just have to say enough is enough, he declares himself the victor an puts another notch on his keyboard.

No really enough, you win, Clarence Thomas forged his Yale degree, killed his mother and father and threatened that when he became a Judge he would destroy anyone that tried to turn him in to the law for his just punishment. I didn’t see all this before but I do now.



opps
2000

Dolly Lavalamp = The Female Robert
The Liberal Posts on this thread PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Liberals are Racists. They are only interested in helping Black People who stay on The Plantation and march lockstep with The Liberals “I Am a Victim” Mentality.

Could Dolly be the Robert’s much talked about fiancée, Wonder Woman? Seems she has been everywhere, done everything and KNOWS everything. She and Robert probably won’t be able to exchange rings as both of them will have sprained shoulders from patting themselves on the back.

Dolly Llama is a racist - redux II
Your arguments are so lacking in reason and coherence, it's clear you have an ax to grind. I hate racism and I call it what it is when I see it.

If Clarence Thomas toed the ideological-liberal-line that you expect black men to embrace, you would have no problem with him. The same goes for Star Parker.

Your judgment is clearly clouded by your racism.

You're a sad, loathesome individual. I don't know if there is any hope for you.

Dolly Llama writes:, 22, 2007 1:50 PM

Conflict of interest

His wife had a job vetting Bush Administration appointees ... which would not have existed, had there been no Bush Administration. Like, DUH!!! See, http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.html (Canon 3).

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I went to your link and saw nothing about Virginia Thomas. Anyway, Virginia Thomas was intentionally slammed by the left to discredit the SC decision. The NY Times did it with an un-attributed article (naturally, weapon of choice) then picked up by Andrea Mitchell. They were sent the correct details by the Heritage Foundation that naturally where ignored.

Virginia’s actual part in this crime was to send an e-mail to the congressional staffers from BOTH parties who had attended her 8 wk class on how to prepare their congressmen to conduct better oversight hearings. Specifically the e-mail said that Mrs. Mary Rose from an another unconnected department is handling any resumes (Virginia never handled nor was ever going to handle)if any wanted jobs in the next administration. It was a courtesy e-mail to her class providing both parties a resource.

Dred Scott Legally Correct?
1. The Court's decision began with the proposition that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case because he was not a citizen of the State of Missouri. (Opponents of the Dred Scott Decision thought the remainder of the decision concerning the Missouri Compromise was unnecessary; i.e., beyond the Court's power to decide; and therefore invalid; i.e., obiter dictum.)

2. Despite the conclusion that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, it went on to hold that Scott was not a free man, even though he had resided for a time in Minnesota (whose state constitution said he was thereby free). This was because the provisions of the Missouri Compromise declaring it to be free territory were beyond Congress's power to enact.

Anyway you look at it, the Dred Scott Decision was a horrible judgement and went way beyond the power of the Supreme Court.

The statements might be a quote from a sitting senior federal district judge; but you repeated them and claimed them as your arguement.

Therefore, my points remain: you are a proven racist, bigot, anti-american, and a liberal.

My opinion (that you are stupid) I guess can still be argued.

Dolly Llama writes:, 22, 2007 2:34 PM
Dolly Llama writes:, 22, 2007 2:34 PM
only five of the justices voted to halt the official count. (All earlier "counts" were estimates, and therefore unofficial.) As for the evidence, Dershowitz has already done the work.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

A practical issue of the one method decision was how long could FL hold up the national election and I believe the court gave them about 11 days to do a recount seeing so much time had expired. Fl chose not to do it.

Mind you I didn’t vote for the guy either time, but facts are facts.

Dolly Llama writes:,

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/121200-02.htm. No Bush Administration, no job for Mrs. T. DUH!!!

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Read item 5 at this link. http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2000/cyb20001222_ wknd.asp

Now for the sake of sane reasoning, let us assume that V. Thomas instead of Mary Rose did have the job of vetting the staffer’s resumes for the next administration. Let us assume that the e-mail was sent only to DEM staffers instead of all staffers. Let us assume she only recommended the DEM staffers and who had proven records of child abuse, drug use, auto theft, and belonged to a terrorist group. Let us assume she wore ALGUR T-shirts everyday to work.

Do you really believe in your sane mind that Heritage is going to fire the partner of a SC Justice, even if it was Ginsburg?

THINK, THINK, BE OBJECTIVE.

Dolly Llama writes: 22, 2007 3:06 PM

And of course, we can read this e-mail where? The Times had the e-mail, and my guess was that it was anything but innocuous -- as the Heritage Foundation would have a significant say in those hiring decisions. There may not have been any actual improprieties, but the law cares not a whit.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Speculation without common sense. The e-mail is going to Dems & Repub staffers. Thomas merely teaches both party staffers a course. She does not vet resumes.

The NY TIMES obviously got this from a Dem staffer she sent it to. What on earth is Thomas going to put in an e-mail to Dem staffers to incriminate herself?

If the e-mail had one shred of guilt, it would have been reprinted on the entire front page of the paper that is in business to sell papers, no different than the Rather documents and all the other alleged nonsense that goes on.

Can you explain why Mrs. T is going to be fired for teaching a class to Dems & Repubs staffers that she had been doing right along. Granted the composition might change in favor of Dems such as her classes today. Do you think they want to stop the class because of that?

This is as stupid as Klinton was behind the 54 suspicious murders in AL when governor that was put out by his childhood buddy and then stockbroker. At some point you partisans just have to be objective.

Dolly Llama is a racist adolescent
If you don't believe me, read his posts and his responses to me and others who aren't allowing his inconsequential opinions and nonsensical assertions to go unchallenged...

Dolly Llama writes: 22, 2007 1:45 PM
Justice Thomas wrote law under the guise of interpreting it -- writing designer law for one and only one set of litigants, in direct contravention of his oath.

"Next, the main basis for the dissent is some "question [over] the precedential value of Bush v. Gore." Dis. Op. at 32. The dissent answers the question by concluding that Bush v. Gore is "a case whose precedential value . . . is at best questionable." Dis. Op. at 36.*fn22 The dissent endeavors to explain three "reasons for doubting Bush v. Gore's precedential value: '[T]he limiting language in the opinion, the lack of seriousness with which the Court undertook its own analysis, and the inconsistency with other jurisprudence by this majority of Justices*fn23 all point in the direction of assuming that Bush v. Gore is not good precedent for an expansive reading of equal protection law in elections.'" Dis. Op. at 37 (quoting Hasen, Bush v. Gore and the Future of Equal Protection Law in Elections, 29 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. at 391). The dissent then focuses on the first two reasons: the lack of the apparent seriousness with which the Court decided the case and the inconsistency with other jurisprudence. ."…]

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

I’m not legal scholar and I don't have good reading skills but I try. Since I have found you last 5 citations in total error during the month I read the case. Where you copied that from did they tell you actually what case it was?

In Stewart V Blackwell 6 circuit of appeal opinion by Martin says, “To start, the dissent misunderstands..". Then he goes to explain the the "misunderstands" of you quote above. His legal argument is they are wrong to claim “at best questionable” etc. He is not suggesting it is correct but error to make such claim.

Read his decision, page 25.

Dottie Lamo
No, you think things through!

The Dred Scott" Supreme Court SAID they did not have the jurisdiction; but ruled on the case anyway! This court's whole purpose was to declare the Missouri Compromise "unconstitutional". Dred Scott was only a "By-Product".

It was NOT a legally correct decision.

Dolly and Impact
A couple observations:

....Dolly is a MORON and,
....Impact's letter to Judge Thomas was neat!

Cripes
This discussion sure went into the toilet in a hurry.

Good grief!
What kind of law practice does Dolly have?
No intelligent lawyer spends hours on-line ranting like a lunatic.

It just amazes me that moonbats are still whining about the 2000 election..

SCOTUS gave SCOFL a spanking. They did not understand their job description.

Dolly Llama writes: , 22, 2007 5:16 PM

Does the dissent "misunderstand?" That's a matter of opinion. Read, e.g., the dissents in Kelo.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Why did you post Martin’s opinion when you disagreed and it destroyed you claim?

I did Kelo and a couple others you posted a week ago that you also didn’t bother reading.

Dolly Llama writes: 5:47 PM

Why would anyone send Heritage a resume in the first place? The outcome of the election had a direct impact on Heritage and by implication, her employment status and value to the foundation.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

So Kerry would call 525 congress critters and threaten them if they continue to send staff to the course.

The new congress critters who will hire staff versed in assisting in hearings will naturally call Heritage to find out who did best in the course and is available from the critters who didn't get re-elected. Most employers tend to check college credentials relative to the job discription.

Here is a real scandal. Daschle’s wife got $800K/yr. to lobby her husband on behalf of Boeing. Hey why not look at Harry Reid’s family also.

Dolly
My dear,

When you post to one thread for 12 hours and are also on another thread 5 hrs. before!!??

I am not posting this to be mean or b****y.

This is a problem that you need to get advice for.
Use a doctor or a spiritual advisor, or a good friend.

Please do something and get back to us herte.

I repeat, this is not sarcasm or meaness.

Gray Ghost
"Supreme Court Justice who will be remembered by History as a man equal to Dr. Martin Luther King"

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.