Paper: Justice Thomas is Black(*)

An editorial in The Milwaukee Journal said that African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas needed an asterisk by his name since, although he's black, his conservative ideology doesn't represent black America:

Washington - A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial in which United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is said to need an "asterisk" next to his name with regard to his race because he "does not represent the views of mainstream black America" outraged members of the black leadership network Project 21.

The racial advocacy group said an editorial written by black columnist Greg Stanford in the October 31 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was critical of the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that Stanford also chose to take issue with Justice Thomas's racial allegiance. The editorial stated: "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

Project 21 members strongly denounced the notion that there is a black way of thinking that is expressly liberal in nature.

AxxessNews.com

Another example of the extreme bias shown against black Republicans/conservatives. Apparently to be really black, you have to be a card-carrying member of the Democrat party.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Republican made a comment like this?

[edit on 11/7/2005 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 11/7/2005 by djohnsto77]

Why the outrage he is telling the sentiments of many black Americans.

I personaly do not like Thomas at all.

I sat trough the entire controversy of Thomas hearings on Anita Hill and I believe Anita.

I really don't like Thomas because forever will be Anita in his background tarnishing his reputation, after all it was a case of sexual harassment.

So don't be so outrage.

You may not like him, think he's a sex abuser, and totally disagree with his decisions, but is that a reason to attack his race and say he's not really black?

I think this paragraph from the article is probably the best:

Murdock added: "Justice Thomas is not on the Court to represent 'mainstream black America' any more than Justice Antonin Scalia is supposed to stick up for Americans of Italian descent or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is supposed to be the Court's voice of American Jewry. Is there a mainstream black view on so-called 'right to die' cases? What is the proper Jewish position on the Endangered Species Act's impact on property rights? Who knows? Justice Thomas represents the conservative judicial philosophy of the president who appointed him. So far, he is doing that quite well. If liberals want to affect the philosophical tone of the Supreme Court, they should consider winning the White House."

To say there's just one black way of thinking is racist and insulting.

The whole concept of the article is disgraceful.

A supreme court justice is appointed to interpret the laws of the land and uphold justice.

Not to represent a race, group, party, club, or anything else.

What warped ideas.

I guess he is been attack for not standing up to his own kind, but to me a justice should not be partial to one group or the other but should be equal to all.

He been black makes him a target to many that disagree with him, I for one am of the opinion that the supreme court should be more diversify to accommodate modern American population.

Perhaps the person that is doing the article Greg Stanford, has some strong opinions as what is going on with the supreme court candidates.

Greg Stanford is also black perhaps he can see better what is going on with Thomas than me, I only base my dislike of Thomas on the Anita hill case.

Also I have my own personal opinions of Alitos replacing a woman in the supreme court.

Kind of make it less balance for our gender no race but gender.

So if Bush nominated a real conservative woman and she ended up voting to overturn Roe v. Wade would she be not really a woman, needing an asterisk by her sex?

God help Janice Rogers Brown if she was nominated -- I guess she'd be black but not really black and a woman but not really a woman. Talk about identity crisis....

Originally posted by marg6043
I sat trough the entire controversy of Thomas hearings on Anita Hill and I believe Anita.

I really don't like Thomas because forever will be Anita in his background tarnishing his reputation, after all it was a case of sexual harassment.

Then I guess you would have to believe Juanita Broaddrick, wouldn't you?

I mean if sexual harassment is so cut and dry... Flat out rape should be...

Ignored?

Outrage indeed. :shk:

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
I mean if sexual harassment is so cut and dry... Flat out rape should be...

Ignored?

Outrage indeed. :shk:

Funny that you misunderstand my stand on the political matters so much, Mirthful Me that you bring the above link but I am going to let you in . . . on a littler secret of mine.

I Favored Republicans candidates up until 2001 after that I vote for the first time Democrat, so as you can see Clinton was not my candidate of choice then.

And yes I am still able to see through a lie or two.

Now I can see the realities of politics in our country better than ever and better that your ideologies will let you see I do not follow any they are not worth it with the choices of candidates we are Given.

Wade vs Roe doesn't worry me at all.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by marg6043]

Tis a personal opinion presented in satirical form. It's an editorial. Nobody is saying that Justice Thomas isn't really black or actually demanding that an asterisk be put next to his name. Some of these things are petty attacks and do nothing for equality in this country. But, you seriously can't think this is racism against black republicans...it's nudging...it's politics.

The truth is if black folk voted their social issues above their economic ones many like my parents would be republicans but we don't in mass. Social issues take a backseat to economic issues for many black folk and that's why Thomas is seen as a trader to many because he's out of touch with the nine million black folk that need assistance. For me, poverty isn't just a black issue but for some it is and their views of Thomas reflect that.

It's just an ugly way of saying he is out of touch with what poor black need.

Ahh, how unified we've become under the progressive flag. We're all just people, not various races...When convenient. But when we're talking about conservatives, well then minority races are supposed to behave a certain way to represent their race, since race is paramount.



Note: that is directed at the mentality that everyone who agrees with our political belief is equal, but those that disagree are a bunch of [racial epithat], [racial epithat], [racial epithat], and [racial epithat] who don't represent their race.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

God help Janice Rogers Brown if she was nominated -- I guess she'd be black but not really black and a woman but not really a woman. Talk about identity crisis....

I can't help it but I do love that quote.

I would have loved to have seen Bush nominate her instead, it would have been an ugly fight in Congress over her nomination, but it would have been worth whether she was confirmed or not.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Can you imagine what would happen if a Republican made a comment like this?

He would have been called a hate mongering racist or something along them lines and they would have demanded that the writer be fired, at the very least.