And where does (In-)Justice Clarence Thomas go to give a 90 minute interview?

[DFW]

He is promoting this new book of his where he tells why he is out to get even with
the country for his miserable existence. He is going before right-wing organizations
to speak (no surprise there), on 60 Minutes (mildly surprising), and then is supposed
to give a 90 minute interview on Rush Limbaugh. VERY surprising.

Why? Well, obviously NOT due to ideological differences, but to go on the show of phony
soldier Limbaugh is pretty much abandoning all pretense of any kind of judicial prudence
or impartiality. It is a blatant declaration to the country and the world that the
Supreme Court of the United States has zealous ideologues on it, and they don't care
who knows it.

William Pitt asked if there are people out there who vote for the Democratic candidate,
no matter who it is. Just look at Clarence Thomas, the model of the type of clown the
Republicans have praised for their Supreme Court choices. That answers Pitt's question
for me if nothing else does.

[papau]

1. Thomas took the job of leading the countriy's afirmative action EEOC so as to destroy it - he is

only into destroying what is around him - and builds nothing up, advocates nothing, that can replace, or even mitigate, what he destroys

A suck up to corporate power and money and the ideas of those in those slots, he is indeed an ideal GOPer.

[Chipper Chat]

2. He just needs to stay away from pubs that serve Coke.

Other than those suggestive locations, he can climb any GOPher Hill he wants.

[Crabby Appleton]

9. and cokes served with pubes.. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Next week, he'll also be interviewed on WWRL (1600-AM) in NYC by his

protogee, Armstrong Williams. Let the Lovefest begin!

[Bitwit1234]

4. It is a shame we can't get our remembrances published.

Maybe someone can find out how many photocopiers the Supreme Court has burned out since thomas became a justice.

There is another instance where the democrats in congress caved. They should never, ever have approved this piece of crap. Anita Hill was not the only one who gave evidence about his sexual escapades. Isn't it odd. Look at all the republicans who have been, or maybe still are, involved in perverted sex.

[Didereaux]

5. BIG question is what has he done that is interesting enough to talk 90 mins about? n/t

[DFW]

6. National Hate Radio always manages to fill the time

If they run out of ideas, they can just chant "Monica, Monica, Monica"
for the 85 minutes that remain after Thomas has spewed out what he
had to say.

[terisan]

7. Writing and Publicizing this book is strange. Harper Collins ($1 million advance) is Murdoch.

Personal comments on Anita Hill are in extreme poor taste-attacking her integrity re religion, her job performance, and claiming that he was essential to her being able to get a job.

My recollection of the Clarence Thomas nomination is that Anita Hill gave confidential testimony about her workexperience with Thomas to FBI when she was asked to. She seems to have done what she believed to be her civic duty, expecting her statements were in confidence. Her expectation of confidentiality was betrayed and thereup she became a public figure, was called upon to testify publicly in the Senate and did so.


There are a few interesting possibilities. Murdoch has bought a supreme court justice and/or Clarence Thomas is smarting for money and/or Thomas is psychologically about to self-destruct.

In terms of experience to be appointed to the Supreme Court Thomas had an incredibly thin resume. He is an example of G H W Bush's sticking it to the people by trivializing the court. I have often wondered if Bush didn't make it clear to thomas on how he was supposed to vote in the Bush family interest and against the people----which he certainly did in Election 2000.

Hope grounds for impeachment come up for Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

[rasputin1952]

8. Not surprising...Thomas presided over the Civil Marriage of

Limbaugh and "the lovely Marta", (I wonder if he signed the divorce decree as well). How many people have been married by a sitting USSC justice? One couple as near as I can figure.

There was a report not long ago, that Thomas has less than 10,000 words on document as a USSC justice. That is over what, 17+ years? How can this idiot of a man even come up with a "book", unless it is on the order of Hannity and his famous, "no words over 5 letters long" selling point.

A quick synopsis of Thomas' life shows some problems as a child, and one could be empathetic if it were not for the fact he took full advantage of that which he despises so blatantly, Equal Opportunity. If not for laws and doors being opened as he grew up, he would be digging ditches in the Deep South, and most likely would have had a bleak future indeed. His intellectual prowess is in need of serious debate, and his laziness is legendary. After all, how can someone sit on the USSC for any amount of time and write < than 10,000 words in decisions? I would have written 10,000 words in decision documents in 3 months! What the hell did he write..."I don't agree" x2000 and sign his name?

For anyone who has suffered through a minor speech by this moron, (there are no "major" speeches by Thomas), one can easily see, as I did, that this man's thought processes are taxed when he thinks he has passed gas.

One other thing, something that stood out for me during his confirmation hearing, he made the statement, "I didn't look at the charges", when he was being grilled by the Senate Committee. To me, it was the most damning thing a member of any court or nominee can possibly say...he was admitting he was making a judgment call on charges being brought w/o even taking the time to look at the charges! He should have been escorted out of the Chamber, and removed from his post as a Federal Judge at that point.