Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:08:07 AM
Justice Thomas Has A Few Things To Say
By Charles P. Pierce
at 4:00PM Jun 24, 2013
We shouldn't leave today's action at the Supreme Court without taking note of the tantrum thrown by Justice Clarence Thomas in the opinion he wrote in Fisher, the Texas affirmative-action case. It's not often that you see anyone take this much utter self-loathing [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-compares-affirmative-action-policies-to-segregation/ (next below)] out for a walk without it ending up in gunplay or a dive off a bridge.
Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists...The University's arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. ... There is no principled distinction between the University's assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists' assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits...It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. ... The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. ... Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University's racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.
This guy is sitting in what used to be Thurgood Marshall's seat on the court. He's lucky the chair itself didn't burst into flame today.
Is it even necessary to point out any more how Thomas has spent his entire career pulling up the ladder behind him? (His tenure as Ronald Reagan's director of the EEOC is a forgotten masterpiece of I've Got Mine, Jack.) He's only become more vigorous about it since he was installed on the Supreme Court as George H.W. Bush's own affirmative-action nominee. He spent a lot of time in his book -- for which he got a $1.5 million advance -- bemoaning the terrible psychological effect affirmative-action had on poor widdle him. He's a lifetime appointee to the highest court in the land, and he's still the dogged victim of a world he never made. Segregation and affirmative action are the same thing in that world. If there's a sadder figure in American politics, I can't think of one offhand.
©2013 Hearst Communications, Inc.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/clarence-thomas-texas-affirmative-action-case-opinion-062413 [with comments]
--
Clarence Thomas compares Affirmative Action policies to segregation
By Aaron Blake, Published: June 24, 2013 at 11:28 am
Justice Clarence Thomas joined in a majority opinion today sending the Supreme Court’s affirmative action case back to a lower court [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-sends-back-university-of-texas-race-admissions-plan-to-lower-court/2013/06/24/2861e66c-dcda-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html ].
But in a concurring opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf ], Thomas added his own take, arguing against affirmative action policies and comparing the school’s justifications to those of Jim Crow-era segregationists.
Thomas says that the “University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists” and that there “is no principled distinction” between the two.
It’s a position he has staked out before; particularly in a 2003 case [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html ] on the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies.
Here’s a sampling of what Thomas said in today’s opinion:
* “Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists.”
* “The University’s arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. … There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.”
* “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”
* “Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity—assuming they exist—hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”
* “It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. … The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. … Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”
* “The University also asserts that student body diversity improves interracial relations. … In this argument, too, the University repeats arguments once marshaled in support of segregation. … We flatly rejected this line of arguments in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U. S. 637 (1950), where we held that segregation would be unconstitutional even if white students never tolerated blacks. … It is, thus, entirely irrelevant whether the University’s racial discrimination increases or decreases tolerance.”
© 2013 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-compares-affirmative-action-policies-to-segregation/ [with comments]
--
Clarence Thomas bluntly calls for end of affirmative action
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
by theGrio | June 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM
ustice Clarence Thomas again urged the end of affirmative action on Monday, writing a fiery concurring opinion in which he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to defend the University of Texas’ diversity program, but urged the Court to go further and simply outlaw the consideration of race in public life.
Thomas has long been an opponent of affirmative action and repeated much of the rhetoric he has used before in condemning the policy. But in his 20-page opinion, Thomas broke new ground in repeatedly likening the rationales of the University of Texas in its admissions program to the people who defended segregation generations ago.
“The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks,” Thomas wrote [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf ].
He added, “This argument was unavailing. It is irrelevant under the Fourteenth Amendment whether segregated or mixed schools produce better leaders. Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”
In another section of the opinion, he writes, “The University’s professed good intentions can not excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists.”
As he did in 2003, when Thomas also called for the Court to issue a broader ruling against affirmative action, Thomas suggested racial preferences not only violated the Constitution and discriminated against white and Asian students, but also did not benefit the blacks and Hispanics it was designed to help. He argues that students who benefit from affirmative action end up in schools in which they cannot keep up with more qualified students and that all of the black and Hispanic students at the University of Texas would be tarred as having only been admitted for diversity purposes, even those who would have gotten into the school without racial considerations.
“The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched. But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where under-performance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete,” Thomas wrote.
He added, “Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self confidence of these over-matched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the University than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less.”
*
Related Posts
Flashback: Clarence Thomas confirmed to Supreme Court today
http://thegrio.com/2012/10/15/flashback-clarence-thomas-confirmed-to-supreme-court-today/
Lillian McEwen: Clarence Thomas was 'easily aroused'
http://thegrio.com/2011/03/07/lillian-mcewen-clarence-thomas-was-easily-aroused/
Madame Noire: Clarence Thomas and his freaky ways
http://thegrio.com/2011/03/09/clarence-thomas-and-his-freaky-ways/
Is Clarence Thomas unfit to serve on the Supreme Court?
http://thegrio.com/2011/06/21/is-clarence-thomas-unfit-to-serve-on-the-supreme-court/
Clarence Thomas' wife's Tea Party ties are supremely disturbing
http://thegrio.com/2010/03/16/clarence-thomas-wifes-tea-party-ties-are-supremely-disturbing/
*
©2013 NBCUniversal
http://thegrio.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-bluntly-calls-for-end-of-affirmative-action/ [with comments]
--
A Long, Slow Drift From Racial Justice
June 24, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/opinion/a-long-slow-drift-from-racial-justice.html
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=2240605 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4956208 (the headline in the initial graphic was "Ask Justice Thomas") and preceding and following; http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4956101 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39118382 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70895930 and preceding and following
By Charles P. Pierce
at 4:00PM Jun 24, 2013
We shouldn't leave today's action at the Supreme Court without taking note of the tantrum thrown by Justice Clarence Thomas in the opinion he wrote in Fisher, the Texas affirmative-action case. It's not often that you see anyone take this much utter self-loathing [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-compares-affirmative-action-policies-to-segregation/ (next below)] out for a walk without it ending up in gunplay or a dive off a bridge.
Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists...The University's arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. ... There is no principled distinction between the University's assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists' assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits...It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. ... The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. ... Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University's racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.
This guy is sitting in what used to be Thurgood Marshall's seat on the court. He's lucky the chair itself didn't burst into flame today.
Is it even necessary to point out any more how Thomas has spent his entire career pulling up the ladder behind him? (His tenure as Ronald Reagan's director of the EEOC is a forgotten masterpiece of I've Got Mine, Jack.) He's only become more vigorous about it since he was installed on the Supreme Court as George H.W. Bush's own affirmative-action nominee. He spent a lot of time in his book -- for which he got a $1.5 million advance -- bemoaning the terrible psychological effect affirmative-action had on poor widdle him. He's a lifetime appointee to the highest court in the land, and he's still the dogged victim of a world he never made. Segregation and affirmative action are the same thing in that world. If there's a sadder figure in American politics, I can't think of one offhand.
©2013 Hearst Communications, Inc.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/clarence-thomas-texas-affirmative-action-case-opinion-062413 [with comments]
--
Clarence Thomas compares Affirmative Action policies to segregation
By Aaron Blake, Published: June 24, 2013 at 11:28 am
Justice Clarence Thomas joined in a majority opinion today sending the Supreme Court’s affirmative action case back to a lower court [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-sends-back-university-of-texas-race-admissions-plan-to-lower-court/2013/06/24/2861e66c-dcda-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html ].
But in a concurring opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf ], Thomas added his own take, arguing against affirmative action policies and comparing the school’s justifications to those of Jim Crow-era segregationists.
Thomas says that the “University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists” and that there “is no principled distinction” between the two.
It’s a position he has staked out before; particularly in a 2003 case [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZX1.html ] on the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies.
Here’s a sampling of what Thomas said in today’s opinion:
* “Finally, while the University admits that racial discrimination in admissions is not ideal, it asserts that it is a temporary necessity because of the enduring race consciousness of our society. Yet again, the University echoes the hollow justifications advanced by the segregationists.”
* “The University’s arguments today are no more persuasive than they were 60 years ago. … There is no principled distinction between the University’s assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists’ assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits.”
* “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”
* “Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity—assuming they exist—hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today.”
* “It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. … The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. … Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”
* “The University also asserts that student body diversity improves interracial relations. … In this argument, too, the University repeats arguments once marshaled in support of segregation. … We flatly rejected this line of arguments in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U. S. 637 (1950), where we held that segregation would be unconstitutional even if white students never tolerated blacks. … It is, thus, entirely irrelevant whether the University’s racial discrimination increases or decreases tolerance.”
© 2013 The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-compares-affirmative-action-policies-to-segregation/ [with comments]
--
Clarence Thomas bluntly calls for end of affirmative action
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
by theGrio | June 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM
ustice Clarence Thomas again urged the end of affirmative action on Monday, writing a fiery concurring opinion in which he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision not to defend the University of Texas’ diversity program, but urged the Court to go further and simply outlaw the consideration of race in public life.
Thomas has long been an opponent of affirmative action and repeated much of the rhetoric he has used before in condemning the policy. But in his 20-page opinion, Thomas broke new ground in repeatedly likening the rationales of the University of Texas in its admissions program to the people who defended segregation generations ago.
“The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks,” Thomas wrote [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf ].
He added, “This argument was unavailing. It is irrelevant under the Fourteenth Amendment whether segregated or mixed schools produce better leaders. Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”
In another section of the opinion, he writes, “The University’s professed good intentions can not excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists.”
As he did in 2003, when Thomas also called for the Court to issue a broader ruling against affirmative action, Thomas suggested racial preferences not only violated the Constitution and discriminated against white and Asian students, but also did not benefit the blacks and Hispanics it was designed to help. He argues that students who benefit from affirmative action end up in schools in which they cannot keep up with more qualified students and that all of the black and Hispanic students at the University of Texas would be tarred as having only been admitted for diversity purposes, even those who would have gotten into the school without racial considerations.
“The University admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges where they would have been more evenly matched. But, as a result of the mismatching, many blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where under-performance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete,” Thomas wrote.
He added, “Setting aside the damage wreaked upon the self confidence of these over-matched students, there is no evidence that they learn more at the University than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better prepared. Indeed, they may learn less.”
*
Related Posts
Flashback: Clarence Thomas confirmed to Supreme Court today
http://thegrio.com/2012/10/15/flashback-clarence-thomas-confirmed-to-supreme-court-today/
Lillian McEwen: Clarence Thomas was 'easily aroused'
http://thegrio.com/2011/03/07/lillian-mcewen-clarence-thomas-was-easily-aroused/
Madame Noire: Clarence Thomas and his freaky ways
http://thegrio.com/2011/03/09/clarence-thomas-and-his-freaky-ways/
Is Clarence Thomas unfit to serve on the Supreme Court?
http://thegrio.com/2011/06/21/is-clarence-thomas-unfit-to-serve-on-the-supreme-court/
Clarence Thomas' wife's Tea Party ties are supremely disturbing
http://thegrio.com/2010/03/16/clarence-thomas-wifes-tea-party-ties-are-supremely-disturbing/
*
©2013 NBCUniversal
http://thegrio.com/2013/06/24/clarence-thomas-bluntly-calls-for-end-of-affirmative-action/ [with comments]
--
A Long, Slow Drift From Racial Justice
June 24, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/opinion/a-long-slow-drift-from-racial-justice.html
--
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=2240605 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4956208 (the headline in the initial graphic was "Ask Justice Thomas") and preceding and following; http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=4956101 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39118382 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=70895930 and preceding and following
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
