Obama Disrespectful of Clarence Thomas?

[ClydeR]

An excellent item in today's Wall Street Journal says that Obama was disrespectful of Clarence Thomas. McCain said "with all due respect," but Obama did not.


Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

[Parkbandit]

It's almost like Obama claims that Clarence Thomas didn't have enough experience at the time he was appointed.

Just saying...

[DCSL]

Sometimes, it's more of an embarrassment to have certain people on your "side" than it would be if you were alone.

[crb]

Racist!

[ClydeR]

One of my favorite things about Clarence Thomas is that he has read the Constitution and understands that the Establishment clause in the Constitution applies only to the federal government, not to the states. When the Newdow case, regarding the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, came before the court, Thomas stood alone (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC2.html) in saying that it didn't matter what California schools did because the Establishment clause didn't apply to them anyway.

That's exactly what the Constitution says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." It doesn't say the states cannot establish religions.

It's too bad that Obama does not want to appoint more judges like Thomas who actually read the Constitution.

[BigWorm]

Thank God Clarence Thomas can correctly read the constitution and realize that state-sponsored religions are NOT unconstitutional.

[Back]

Jeebus, ClydeR... you make it sound like Thomas said he found one of Obama’s pubic hairs in his coke. Ok, bad joke.

But, to pointedly address ClydeR in a more serious manner... you’ve expressed your dislike of the current Republican and Democratic candidates. While it is obvious you have a serious dislike for Obama, do you have anything at all positive to say about who you support? Or are you just so dissatisfied with everyone you happen to pick on the one you think has the best chance of winning and doing the right thing?

[Gan]

Thumbs up for Clarance Thomas. ;)

[ClydeR]

But, to pointedly address ClydeR in a more serious manner... you’ve expressed your dislike of the current Republican and Democratic candidates. While it is obvious you have a serious dislike for Obama, do you have anything at all positive to say about who you support? Or are you just so dissatisfied with everyone you happen to pick on the one you think has the best chance of winning and doing the right thing?

You have a keen insight. Now that I reflect on it, I realize that I have become jaded and angry at both candidates. I'll try to say something positive every now and then.

[Back]

You have a keen insight. Now that I reflect on it, I realize that I have become jaded and angry at both candidates. I'll try to say something positive every now and then.

Awesome. I think you should. Thats good of you to offer. Will you deliver?

[TheEschaton]

A) Saying "with all due respect" doesn't mean you're being respectful, and B) Clarence Thomas is a disgrace to the Court, and shouldn't be respected anyways. At least Scalia is smart, even if I disagree with him.

edit: the worst thing is that he replaced, who, Thurgood Marshall? Ugh.

-TheE-

[radamanthys]

With all due respect, your mother's cunt is looser than a football goalpost... and probably used for the same general purpose.

See... it doesn't always work.

[Daniel]

Thumbs up for Clarance Thomas. ;)

Yea, you're being fair and unbiased this election season.

[Ashliana]

One of my favorite things about Clarence Thomas is that he has read the Constitution and understands that the Establishment clause in the Constitution applies only to the federal government, not to the states. When the Newdow case, regarding the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, came before the court, Thomas stood alone (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZC2.html) in saying that it didn't matter what California schools did because the Establishment clause didn't apply to them anyway.

That's exactly what the Constitution says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." It doesn't say the states cannot establish religions.

It's too bad that Obama does not want to appoint more judges like Thomas who actually read the Constitution.

The states are bound by the limits placed on the federal government as a vehicle of incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

The constitution was written to protect the people against federal intrusion. It's a limit on federal power. However, the congress realized that protection against the states was also necessary and the states' representatives passed the following language:


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that no state may infringe on the rights granted, with limitations, by the bill of rights. Guess which right that includes? The establishment clause of the first amendment, which states, as you pointed out, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

And this magically now applies to the states.

[ClydeR]

The states are bound by the limits placed on the federal government as a vehicle of incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

Clarence Thomas does not agree with you. He explains in great detail at the link I provided why the Establishment clause does not apply to the states. He says that the Establishment clause does not protect individual rights and, therefore, was not one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" incorporated by the 14th amendment. He also says that the Establishment clause was designed to protect religions established by the states from being overridden by the federal government's establishment of its own official religion. In other words, it was designed to protect the rights of state governments to establish their own official religions.

With a few more judges like Thomas, we can overturn some of the legislating from the bench that has taken place over the last 30 years.

[TheEschaton]

Clarence Thomas is wrong, dumbass.

[Parkbandit]

Clarence Thomas is wrong only because I don't agree with him, dumbass.

Corrected for accuracy.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, even Scalia doesn't agree with him on what ClydeR posted, dumbass.

[Parkbandit]

I bet you hate Thomas because he is black.

Fucking racist.

[TheEschaton]

Way to deflect how even conservative jurists like Scalia disagree with Thomas on many things.

[thefarmer]

Anita Hill thinks Clarence Thomas is a dumbass

[Warriorbird]

I visited the Supreme Court. Thomas was asleep, snoring loudly on his desk. Every other Judge, conservative or liberal, was awake and active. There was a period of time where he hadn't said a single thing in court... at all.