Neds multiple rants against Kerry

[Rufus T. Firefly]

So, convince me that, at the time of his appontment, Thomas was the most qualified man for the job. Hell, convince me that he was one of the 100 most qualified people for the job.

[notyoueither]

I don't think that any partisans are open to any convincing of anything at the moment.

Suffice to say that if the man was good enough to even be considered one of 100 for the Supreme Court, he would be a good role model. The fact he got on it might have a futher impact, but you say not, so I'll let it go.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
This is a good time for you to explain how you couyld feel someone who has fought and risked his life in defense of this country is weak on defense while another person who used connections to get out of fighting is tough on defense.

PAX, if that were to only factor relavent to the inquiry, you would of course have a winning argument.

The problem with Kerry per se is that he had a long record in Congress, his anti-war activities, his vote against Gulf War I and an completely incoherent view on Iraq (caused by the Dean interlude).

[Ned]

Rufus, you denigrate affirmative action by your post.

But you should also explain why racial, sexual and religious balance on the court is not proper criteria.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's a ****ed up view.

And notice that it came from the "liberal side of the aisle."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Rufus, you denigrate affirmative action by your post.

But you should also explain why racial, sexual and religious balance on the court is not proper criteria.

I think they are fine criteria, but I think the person should be qualified first, like Marshall or Ginsberg.

Barring that, they should at least rise to the occassion, as, I would argue, Sandra Day O'Connor has done.

But Thomas? Thomas is the most lackluster Supreme Court appointment since LBJ appointed Abe Fortas.

This is not me ranting against conservatives; I despise Renquist and Scalia, but I don't doubt that they are qualified to serve on the Court.

It is Thomas, on the other hand, who "denigrates" affirmative action. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that, by giving a promising candidate an opportunity that would otherwise be denied him because of prejudice, that person can show that they are as good as any white, or any man, etc. But Thomas was a second-rate mediocrity when he was nominated and now, more than a decade later, he is a more prominent second-rate mediocrity. He has no accomplishments of note or depth, either before joining the Court or since -- and he is the only member of the Court of whom that can be said. Unlike Marshall, unlike Colin Powell, unlike Condi Rice or Barak Obama, his sole identity in his institution is that he's "the black one."

Again: some role model

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Pax
Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall are not leaders in the black community through appointment to the supreme court. You become a leader of the black community through your deeds/actions. Clarence Thomas has no record or not enough of one that would designate him a leader in the black community. However, his service as a judge would make him a leader in the larger group that includes the smaller group. Think about that for as long as it takes you to figure out that you have to do more than be born black and become successful to qualify yourself as a leader in the black community.

Doesn't take more than a moment. One becomes a leader in the black community by pandering to the lowest common denominator while the black community turns a blind eye to all the sucking-up to white guys in charge of the Dems.

But just be portrayed as sucking up to the Republican white guys, nope, that's disqualifier.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Ned]

Rufus, even assuming that what you say is true about Thomas's skills, don't you think it was right for the president to appoint a black to replace Marshall? And, if you would at least agree on this point, did you have another black lawyer or judge in mind that was known to be better than Thomas at the time?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sorry I provided a poll from a reputable organization and you gave me an unsupported claim without any real back up. I declare you still to be pwnd.

I declare myself unpwned!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

African-American (11%) 11% (Bush) +2 (point change) 88% (Kerry)

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Rufus, even assuming that what you say is true about Thomas's skills, don't you think it was right for the president to appoint a black to replace Marshall? And, if you would at least agree on this point, did you have another black lawyer or judge in mind that was known to be better than Thomas at the time?

Off the top of my head Julian Bond.

[Pax]

[/Q] Doesn't take more than a moment. One becomes a leader in the black community by pandering to the lowest common denominator while the black community turns a blind eye to all the sucking-up to white guys in charge of the Dems.

But just be portrayed as sucking up to the Republican white guys, nope, that's disqualifier.

Hypocrisy at its finest. [/QUOTE]
Good point. Let me put it like this. Even if black leaders like Jesse Jackson and etc. are sucking the dicks of white democrats they are still bringing something back to the black community from the whorehouse. They are therefore respectable whores. and then there are leaders like Farrakhan that have little or no allegiance to democrats. His organization promotes the upliftment of blacks. Whether or not you agree with his politics. Then you have the Clarence Thomases. He brings nothing back. Contributes nothing. His viewpoints have no benefit to the community. He's black. He's a judge. That's just not enough to make him a leader of the black community.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pax
Off the top of my head Julian Bond.

Yes, excellent suggestion. It's not going to happen though. The idea of George Bush nominating Julian Bond for a Supreme Court post is pretty funny.

[Ned]

Julian Bond? The only thing I really know about him is that he is a radical Democrat. When I was asking the question, I assumed that it was at least understood that the person that a Republican president would nominate would normally be a prominent Republican jurist, not a radical Democrat, even if that Democrat had good legal credentials.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Julian Bond? The only thing I really know about him is that he is a radical Democrat. When I was asking the question, I assumed that it was at least understood that the person that a Republican president would nominate would normally be a prominent Republican jurist, not a radical Democrat, even if that Democrat had good legal credentials.

Actually, the criteria you suggested was a black person that would qualify as a leader in the black community and be more qualified than clarence thomas. Now you're saying that he has to be someone that a repubican president will accept. That sounds to me like you're asking me to find another clarence thomas.

[asleepathewheel]

Is Julian Bond even an attorney? I can't confirm that he is through a quick googling.