« Home | Cameras in the Court » | Alito and the First Amendment » | My Addiction » | Fly the Flag » | Do You People Really Think that Conflicts of Inter... » | A Few Words from Justice Thomas » | Federalist Society Meets in DC » | The McGee Family: Comedy Gold » | More on Alito and Recusal » | Point of Law » 

Sunday, November 13, 2005 

* Redux

Gregory Stanford tries to defend his previous remarks about Justice Thomas.

In talking about Thomas, Stanford says the following...
He has voted to uphold all challenges to affirmative action that came before the court on the ground that the corrective policy is "noxious" and "government-sponsored racial discrimination."
Well isn't it? Isn't it incredibly degrading to tell an entire group of people that we have to change the rules and standards in order for them to compete?

Stanford expresses shock that his statements caused such an outcry...
To my dismay, what I believed to be a mere statement of fact drew charges of racism. Conservative talk radio and the right-wing blogosphere fanned the flames.
Well as long as I'm just fanning the flames, let's continue cause flame fanning is fun.

Stanford then reframes the argument so his side looks better...
The colorblind school believes that race no longer matters, or else that the best way to arrive at the day when race no longer matters is to ignore race right now.

The race-conscious school agrees that unnecessarily harping on skin color hints at racism, but it believes that keeping tabs on race is necessary when it comes to gauging the progress the nation has made in becoming more inclusive.
It's nice of Stanford to accurately convey the opposing sides views. Yeah, he wouldn't misrepresent them at all. Nah.

Finally, Stanford gives us his conclusion...
Here's what the editorial aside did not say: Thomas is not black. Thomas is wrong in not reflecting mainstream black thought. All blacks should march lockstep to such thought. All black conservatives lie outside such thought.

Interesting. I'm feeling rather textualist tonight (like every night) so let's see what Stanford originally said...
Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

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.
This is one of the points of the editorial, and the point in controversy. Stanford says that this is about diversity. He then points out that Justice O'Connor wanted a woman to replace her. So his point was that just having a woman on the Court increased diversity. Then he goes off on how great O'Connor has become on diversity and that supporting affirmative action is the sign of intelligence. Don't make me post my picture of the rolling eyes guy puking more rolling eyes guys.

Next, notice the shift in message. Now, Stanford just focuses on the races and sexes of the Justices. He then focuses only on Justice Thomas for the "racial views" test. What about Justice Ginsburg? Let's put her to the test. Does she represent the views of mainstream white (or even Jewish if you want to get picky) women? I'd say no. I think most people would agree with me. Stanford should give her an asterisk then too. Do the same test with each Justice. Find me one that accurately represents the views of mainstream ________ America.

It's the singling out of Justice Thomas that is the problem. I think it's clear that Stanford has a grudge against Thomas. He doesn't like the fact that Thomas isn't Justice Marshall. Tough. You don't get to guide how Justices vote on cases, even if you share the same racial background. You know what's great? Justice Thomas is 57 years old. He'll be on the Court for a long time. We have many years of Stanford being pissed off to look forward to.

Edit Comment

About me

  • I'm Steve
  • From Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke
  • E-mail Me
My profile