The Best Argument Against Affirmative Action: Clarence Thomas

[subgenius]

This man is hardly qualified to be a lawyer, much less on the Supreme Court. A direct beneficiary of Affirmative Action he nonetheless knows where his bread is buttered.
After disclaiming AA and that there was a "Black" spot on the Supreme Court, after the death of one of our greatest jurists, Thurgood Marshall, George H.W. Bush nonetheless appointed a puppet justice, Clarence Thomas.
By no account has he made a mark on the Court except for his lack of independent thinking.

"What a cunning man Clarence Thomas is.

He knew that he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.

So he made a powerful psychological argument against what the British call "positive discrimination," known here as affirmative action.

Justice Thomas's dissent in the 5-4 decision preserving affirmative action in university admissions has persuaded me that affirmative action is not the way to go.

The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/opinion/25DOWD.html?ex=1057204800&en=7c559436232c6378&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Great read.
And before you post educate yourself as to his (lack of) qualifications to be on the Court in the first place (other than knee-jerk predictable decisions).
His quotations of great civil rights leaders of the past in support of positions they would be appalled by is nothing short of embarrassing.
We, as a country, need to appoint truly great independent thinkers, not just those who will decide cases the way we want.
It is important. We can live with decisions that are adverse if we believe they were arrived at by justice, and not politics.

[crackmonkey]

Anything that gets a rise out of Maureen Dowd is okay in my book. I'm not much of a Michael Douglas fan, but I gotta admire the man for kicking her alcoholic self-absorbed ass to the curb.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Anything that gets a rise out of Maureen Dowd is okay in my book. I'm not much of a Michael Douglas fan, but I gotta admire the man for kicking her alcoholic self-absorbed ass to the curb.
Your substantive analysis is appreciated.

[Brown]

I must say that I have had doubts about other Supreme Court appointees, such as Justices Souter and Ginsburg.

Justice Souter has surprised a lot of people by rising to the challenge, and Justice Ginsburg is coming into her own as well.

Justice Thomas, by contrast, seems to be stuck in Justice Scalia's shadow. I am often disappointed in the quality of his opinions.

[crackmonkey]

My analysis was more factual than Dowd's was. Read the article again, and note how many points are mere speculation and hand-waving. How that woman can get paid for her crap is beyond me... it kills me. Blair was fired for the kind of thing she does on a weekly basis. She has no redeeming value whatsoever. Maybe as a target on a dartboard...

[Tmy]

And just how to they pick Supreme Court Justices??POLITICAL CONNECTIONS THATS HOW!!!!!

Its not like they gave every judge a test and then picked the people with the top scores. So don't act like the Justices are the best qualified judges in the nation cause they're not.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
My analysis was more factual than Dowd's was. Read the article again, and note how many points are mere speculation and hand-waving. How that woman can get paid for her crap is beyond me... it kills me. Blair was fired for the kind of thing she does on a weekly basis. She has no redeeming value whatsoever. Maybe as a target on a dartboard...
Thank you for your input.

[BillyTK]

A minor point, Affirmative Action is not what 'British call "positive discrimination,' positive discrimination is ;)

Edited to add:
From the article
When he switched from a Democrat to a conservative as a young man, he knew that he would be a hotter commodity in politics.

I've got to admit I've found something distasteful and vaguely racist in the way that certain Black conservatives are held up as poster boys/girls for the new "race-friendly" right crowd. It would be appear that there is a greater cache in being conservative and Black, which kind of contradicts the whole "colour blind society" thing. Still, I can't blame anyone for exploiting such a situation, even if turning condemning the programmes which aided them raises a wry smile.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
And just how to they pick Supreme Court Justices??POLITICAL CONNECTIONS THATS HOW!!!!!

Its not like they gave every judge a test and then picked the people with the top scores. So don't act like the Justices are the best qualified judges in the nation cause they're not.
Very sad but true.
Although he was politically connected, others were more connected and qualified, but more independent. He was chosen for the predictability of his decisions.
I don't think its asking too much for there to be a higher, better standard. These folks affect our daily lives to a great extent.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by subgenius

others were more connected and qualified.


What are the qualifications anyway? Why is ot OK to be connected but such a horrible thing that his race was taken into account.

In a unique job such as a Sup Ct judge I think race and gender and different backgrounds are in fact qualifications. They are making life changing decisions for the whole country. Its not the type of job that you want robots to do.

[c0rbin]

He was chosen for the predictability of his decisions.


I think this is how most appointees get appointed.


I don't think its asking too much for there to be a higher, better standard. These folks affect our daily lives to a great extent.


It'd be nice, I agree. But apparently the Bushes aren't so concerned. I mean, Clarence Thomas isn't the only one to go to Yale on privilege...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy



What are the qualifications anyway? Why is ot OK to be connected but such a horrible thing that his race was taken into account.

In a unique job such as a Sup Ct judge I think race and gender and different backgrounds are in fact qualifications. They are making life changing decisions for the whole country. Its not the type of job that you want robots to do.
In my opinion, knowledge and wisdom.
I'm not agreeing that connections are OK.
Neither do I think that it is horrible to take the factors you mention into consideration.
Don't like judicial robots either, which is one of the points of this thread.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by c0rbin


I think this is how most appointees get appointed.


Unfortunately so in the recent past. And when you have one party controlling all three branches of government hang on, its going to be a bumpy ride.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Tmy



What are the qualifications anyway? Why is ot OK to be connected but such a horrible thing that his race was taken into account.

In a unique job such as a Sup Ct judge I think race and gender and different backgrounds are in fact qualifications. They are making life changing decisions for the whole country. Its not the type of job that you want robots to do.

I agree, although what life changing decision is Thomas making on the Supreme Court? All he does is vote with Scalia. Scalia may as well have two votes instead of one.

Lurker

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Lurker


I agree, although what life changing decision is Thomas making on the Supreme Court? All he does is vote with Scalia. Scalia may as well have two votes instead of one.

Lurker
And they keep score.

[Tmy]

Here's an example. The recent cross burning case. The fact that Thomas is black brings a needed point of view to the Supreme Ct.

The Sup Ct is sort of a group of wise elders. As corny as that sounds. I feel its important they reflect the make up of the country.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
Here's an example. The recent cross burning case. The fact that Thomas is black brings a needed point of view to the Supreme Ct.

The Sup Ct is sort of a group of wise elders. As corny as that sounds. I feel its important they reflect the make up of the country.
No argument there.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
I must say that I have had doubts about other Supreme Court appointees, such as Justices Souter and Ginsburg.

Justice Souter has surprised a lot of people by rising to the challenge, and Justice Ginsburg is coming into her own as well.

Justice Thomas, by contrast, seems to be stuck in Justice Scalia's shadow. I am often disappointed in the quality of his opinions.

Has Thomas _ever_ voted different than Scalia?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
My analysis was more factual than Dowd's was. Read the article again, and note how many points are mere speculation and hand-waving. How that woman can get paid for her crap is beyond me... it kills me. Blair was fired for the kind of thing she does on a weekly basis. She has no redeeming value whatsoever. Maybe as a target on a dartboard...


To think that during the Clinton administration, I was a regular Dowd reader. Once Bush got elected her columns turned into trash. She has become a tool.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Has Thomas _ever_ voted different than Scalia?

Are there any other two people who have always voted the same way?

Does flipping back and forth show independent thought or lack of core principles?

I think the "Scalia and Thomas always vote the same" is an over-generalization.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by corplinx


Are there any other two people who have always voted the same way?

Does flipping back and forth show independent thought or lack of core principles?

I think the "Scalia and Thomas always vote the same" is an over-generalization.

I don't know, are there? Where can we see the votes of the past ten years and who voted which way? I very easily could be wrong about Scalia and Thomas.

As to showing independent thought, well, I have a friend and he and I agree on almost everything. But every once in a while we disagree. Matter of fact, I have no friends that agree with me on everything.

I am merely pointing out that if Thomas has voted with Scalia on EVERYTHING, I just find that a little odd. And threw in a joke about saving money for good measure.

Lurker

[Tmy]

Ever think that maybe Scalia is Thomas' lapdog!!! Maybe he's siding wh Thomas. Scalia is Italian. Compared to the rest of the Court thats just like being black. Brothers gotta stick together.

[c0rbin]

Scalia is Italian. Compared to the rest of the Court thats just like being black. Brothers gotta stick together.

That's one of the best scenes from True Romance--between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken.

Link (http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0108399)



Clifford Worley: You're Sicilian, ha?



Edited to say...I had originally had the whole exchange posted here, but pulled it because some could construe it as offensive, which it is definatly meant to be.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Affirmitive action ias based on a double-standard. Most supporters I know of admit this.

However they then argue that AA(affirmitive action) is still necessary because blacks are historically at a disadvantage. They are facing an uphill battle of unfairness, and for them to have the same chances as a white they need extra help. The ends justifies the means.

Now I agree the ends can justify the means but I still have problems with the entire program:

1) The entire program seems patch-work. It seems very short-sighted and more like a way of looking like you are helping the disadvantaged then actually helping them.

You can get a black man into college faster, and into a job easier. But that doesn't teach them how to pass or how to get a job.

Lets say a company needs 10 more black men, well that can be 10 black janitors. Either that or they accept someone unqualified and lose profit.

Yeah a black man can now get in college, but he may get in unqualified, be overwhelmed and drop out. In fact affirmitive action, when implemented does little to negate the huge drop-out rate effecting african americans and other poor minorities.

I believe we should look into discrimination and punish schools for it if its proven by solid means. AA says it does this but its standards are so loose that they demand unqualified personel get in. (Basically the current AA standard examines what percentage of a given minority are there vs how much of that group is in the community.) A better test would be to see if there are any qualified black people that were not chosen selected while unqualified whites were.Then the school can be sued or charged, not demanded to accept a certain percentage of minorities.

Also programs should be made to help disadvantaged via funding or government training programs, to help them improve themselves and get qualified if they are truly poor and at a disadvantage. Not simply get into a job or college easier.

2) The AA approach is simplistic, misguided and ignores certain contingencies when determining which group is disadvantaged. It assumes that racial minority automatically equals disadvantaged. But that isn't necessarily so.

Yes a black or chinese man's ancestors may have been slaves/rail road workers and not have many oppurtunies. But if the guys dad is now a millionare CEO, that historical disadvantage means nil.

Yes some white guy's great grandfather may have had a better chance of getting into school or college then his 19th century black peers. But now, if the man is poor and living in a trailer, he has far less opportunities then a rich black man in a mansion.

Hence if AA is really meant to help the disadvantaged, they should help people who are poor, regardless of color. Not just rich people based merely in race. For rich people, ragardless of color, don't really need help. They have a huge advantage over the poor as it is.

Also this help shouldn't merely be based on hand-outs but improvement as well. Poor people should get extra funding and training, not just a percentage of representation.

If I was poor I'd in fact prefer a helpful service, like a cheap medical-care facility, tutor or some extra funding. Not a percentage of representation.

That makes it so we help them get qualified instead of simply giving them more representation.

3) Americans value fairness. Perhaps for some this value can merely be tossed out as a means to an end, but to many it's simply unfair and wrong. This has a negative effect of harming one of our core values and secondly of incurring resentment from those unfairly displaced by less qualified personel. In other words: for them the ends do not justify the means.

Americans want equal opporutunity, a chance for people to better themselves and earn a place based on their own ability. At least I do, as do those with meritocratic sentiments. I and I believe many americans don't want handouts and priveledge. Which is what affirmitive actions is currently based around, not helping to improve the individual if he or she is at a disadvantage, or giving them extra aid in order ot improve themselves/give them equal acess based on ability, but on giving them a percentage.

Hence I disagree with affirmitive action because it is unfair, patch-work and simplistic/misguided.

In short I agree with equal oppurtunity and a way of punishing racist institutions. I don't think affrimitive action, as it currently is, represents the right way to go about this though.

Basically the disadvantaged are disadvantaged due to a lack of rescources, which lowers their level of qualification. They get worse grade schools, less money, less time to spend studyign etc. Mere affirmitive action by demanding a percentage does not change this or help it.

Like I said it's merely a way of looking like the problem is being solved, imstead of actually solving it.

To solve the problem we have to give poor students and poor people what they really need to better themselves/level the playing field: rescources. More educational programs, training facilities, etc.

In that way we get people in positions according to their actual ability, not simply because they were born with richer parents or because some law mandates a certain amount of them get in.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Has Thomas _ever_ voted different than Scalia?

LOL!

What makes you suspect not? Because people who don't like either man keep saying so, over and over?

Originally posted by Lurker
I am merely pointing out that if Thomas has voted with Scalia on EVERYTHING, I just find that a little odd.

It would be more than a little odd.

MattJ

[crackmonkey]

http://www.findarticles.com/m1282/15_51/55234311/p1/article.jhtml

Some specifics about Thomas' differences with Scalia.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by subgenius
This man is hardly qualified to be a lawyer, much less on the Supreme Court. A direct beneficiary of Affirmative Action he nonetheless knows where his bread is buttered.
After disclaiming AA and that there was a "Black" spot on the Supreme Court, after the death of one of our greatest jurists, Thurgood Marshall, George H.W. Bush nonetheless appointed a puppet justice, Clarence Thomas.
By no account has he made a mark on the Court except for his lack of independent thinking.

"What a cunning man Clarence Thomas is.

He knew that he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.

So he made a powerful psychological argument against what the British call "positive discrimination," known here as affirmative action.

Justice Thomas's dissent in the 5-4 decision preserving affirmative action in university admissions has persuaded me that affirmative action is not the way to go.

The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/opinion/25DOWD.html?ex=1057204800&en=7c559436232c6378&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Great read.
And before you post educate yourself as to his (lack of) qualifications to be on the Court in the first place (other than knee-jerk predictable decisions).
His quotations of great civil rights leaders of the past in support of positions they would be appalled by is nothing short of embarrassing.
We, as a country, need to appoint truly great independent thinkers, not just those who will decide cases the way we want.
It is important. We can live with decisions that are adverse if we believe they were arrived at by justice, and not politics.

Subgenius,

Not to defend Clarence Thomas per se...

But does the fact that he benefitted from Affirmative Action mean that he must be in favor of it for all time in perpituity?

If that is so, no black academic can be critical of these policies, because one can just turn around and say, "Well YOU benefitted from them."

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Subgenius,

Not to defend Clarence Thomas per se...

But does the fact that he benefitted from Affirmative Action mean that he must be in favor of it for all time in perpituity?

If that is so, no black academic can be critical of these policies, because one can just turn around and say, "Well YOU benefitted from them."
No. Forever is a long time.

[c0rbin]

You can get a black man into college faster, and into a job easier.

To maintain some consistancy on this board a (for myself), I must say that what you describe is not AA. AA is anti-discrimination policy.

No one who is not qualified will get into a university. However a university should admit students of minorities who are qualified to reap the benefits of diversity.

This means that some will not be admitted.

It is my opinion (as has been stated in other threads about AA) that this policy does not harm "white people".

[davefoc]

My view is that the Maureen Dowd piece is crap and subgenius is showing an incredible ignorance of his own biases not to realize that.

Maureen Dowd could have written a piece discussing the pros and cons of affirmative action. When she thought it was appropriate and when it wasn't. Maybe backed it up with some statistical evidence of its successes. Maybe discussed some of its failures.

Instead she wrote an off the cuff piece where she slurred Thomas without any specifics and provided no particular insight into the issue of affirmative action and really no evidence against Thomas other than that she thought it was ok to insult him.

Contrast that with the piece that crackmonkey referenced. Subgenius might not like it because it was pro Thomas. But it also used facts to back up opinion instead of mindless slurs ala Dowd.

[Tricky]

First sentence....
Originally posted by davefoc
My view is that the Maureen Dowd piece is crap and subgenius is showing an incredible ignorance of his own biases not to realize that.
Final sentence:
Originally posted by davefoc
But it also used facts to back up opinion instead of mindless slurs ala Dowd.

Hmmm....

[subgenius]

So davefoc,
Give me an analysis of Thomas' legal background that makes him qualified to be on the Court, and of his decisions so far.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by subgenius
So davefoc,
Give me an analysis of Thomas' legal background that makes him qualified to be on the Court, and of his decisions so far.

Aren't you outsmartting yourself here?

Isn't this preciously what the opponents of Affirmative Action say?

Too many unqualified people make it to postions of power?

[davefoc]

subgenius said:Give me an analysis of Thomas' legal background that makes him qualified to be on the Court, and of his decisions so far.

I am not qualified to do this. I did look through a summary of his biography and nothing stood out that would have made me think he wasn't an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court.

I also looked through several of the opinions that he has written. He seems to be able to write clearly, to be able to grasp complicated issues and he seems to have a knowledge of the law.

The only supreme court decision that I have ever studied to any degree was the Lawrence versus Texas case involving the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. Although in the end I came to tentatively agree with the majority decision, I also felt the majority opinion was poorly written, poorly argued and filled with irrelevant, unconnected facts. The writings of Thomas that I read were clear and concise, so if the ability to write clearly and argue with relevant facts is important then, IMHO, Thomas seems at least better in that than some on the Supreme Court.

[Regnad Kcin]

"...Clarence Thomas was a legislative assistant to Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri. Danforth ended up sponsoring Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court and shepherded Thomas through the thicket of the entire nomination process. Thomas' appointment to the court in 1991 was one of the most markedly political in recent memory. Though he was only forty-two, he had never distinguished himself in any way whatsoever as a lawyer or on the bench (just one year on the U.S. Court of Appeals), and was not rated "highly qualified" by the American Bar Association, he was apparently what President George Bush was looking for at the time -- a very conservative black. Remarkably, during his Senate confirmation hearings Thomas testified that he had never once debated with anyone the merits of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion.- From The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi.

[davefoc]

Premise:
Thomas got his job because he was a conservative black judge with political connections with arguably enough experience and qualifications for the job.

My thought:
This is a given. It doesn't mean he is incompetent. It doesn't mean he is corrupt. It doesn't mean that his interpretation of the constitution is wrong. It doesn't mean he is stupid. It doesn't mean that he is a bad person because he took advantage of an opportunity that came his way. And it doesn't mean that he alone got to the Supreme Court because of political connections instead of a grand altruistic search to find the best qualified person in the country, whatever that would be.

For reasons that I don't quite understand, Thomas, more than any other judge is rudely attacked by liberals. Rarely with any specifics. It is just done, like a kind of knee jerk mantra. No evidence is required, no substantive arguments are required, no real thought is required, he is just insulted because it is the in, liberal thing to do and because it is so much easier than actually having to think about the views of somebody you disagree with.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
- From The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi.
A must read.