Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

rooster -- nowhere moreso than in positions of national leadership, what matters in any given instance is whether a person is the right person for the position, regardless of race (I thought you far-right types liked to stand behind that principle -- or is that only when it suits your agenda of the moment? -- or is it instead that only you far-right types are allowed to stand behind that principle?)

for one particularly glaring case-in-point: in the legal landscape in general, and in particular in the landscape of persons who have served as Justices of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, to put it bluntly but also very accurately, is a moron, quite possibly the least-qualified Justice of any persuasion to ever sit on the Supreme Court, who just happens to also be a far-right extremist (which of course is the real reason he, rather than any of the many far better qualified and far more experienced black lawyers then available, was nominated), notable primarily for nothing whatsoever more substantial in his entire life than his history of kissing the butts of non-black and all-too-often undeniably racist far-right types to get ahead in his life -- it was an insult to the Supreme Court and to all Americans (not just to black Americans) for Clarence Thomas to be put on the Supreme Court, only made worse by the rank disingenuousness inherent in the fact that he was 'slotted' as the 'black' replacement for Thurgood Marshall, who indeed was the first black Justice but much more to the point was an undeniably outstanding Justice who, it just happened, proved once and for all that a black person could not only serve acceptably on the Supreme Court, but could -- and did, for more than 20 years -- serve with great distinction on the Supreme Court

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/marshall.htm