Clarence Thomas is a "clown in blackface."

That is not what I meant. In the personal world of heated passion often one mean to wound those who have hurt us. Takei is Gay and has seen the dark side of those who direct their hatred toward same-sex relationships. I don't think Takei to be any more racist than the rest of America. After all, Takei is not only Gay but non-white so I don't think he is ever poised to hurl racial insults at minorities. Deep-seated emotional anger will cause one to act out of character and by using the phrase he used he was releasing an inner tension.

Justices Scalia, Alito and Roberts are white and are not the descendants of slaves in Racist America, where the Confederate Flag continues to fly celebrating their fight to keep slaves. The three mentioned above have had all the privileges of white supremacy while Clarence Thomas should know better. Sure, he's a conservative, but did he have to sell his soul or help in keeping his own suppressed in the bargain? Thomas has encountered racism all his life because of his color being born in Georgia, a red state. His race is still striving to overcome and are faced with obstacles every day. Justice Clarence Thomas cannot afford to act like the three white judges who make the rules, many of these rules that continue to plague Black Americans; why Justice Roberts gutted the voting rights acts recently making it more difficult for Blacks to vote in certain states. Where was Justice Thomas even though his one voice would have been overruled, but even so if he had voted against Roberts majority ruling, his opinion of no would have been in all the papers. Thomas, in my opinion, is an enabler in keeping African Americans suppressed, after all, he has his "exalted position" on the highest court in the land, so why bother about his black brother?

I understand quite well we are all individuals, and some of us are liberals, some moderate, some conservative and some extremists. But integrity, moral decency seems to be missing in the world of Clarence Thomas who would sell his mother for money for the Koch brothers.

And that is where the racist part of this comes from. Thomas doesn't have to vote a certain way or hold a certain opinion because he is black. That he holds obnoxious positions is not more obnoxious because of his skin color. The liberal justices are not more saintly because they have overcome "all the privileges of white supremacy". Your race does not dictate your thoughts. Implying that black people must think a certain way or they are "an insult to minorities" is racist by definition.

You are absolutely correct in that Thomas doesn't have to vote a certain way because of his color. What a world it would be if that were the case. I do not deny this by any stretch of the imagination. Thomas is a useful tool for his masters. He was utilized by the first President Bush to fill the late Justice the Honorable Thurgood Marshall's seat. My how Thomas has tarnished that great jurist's seat. Thomas is used by the Koch brothers by selling his services to them. Why Thomas even cheats the American people let alone his African American brother. In my opinion, Thomas is a traitor to his race and the American people; he is a despicable human being by nature.

You are saying Thomas doesn't have to vote a certain way because of his color, but in your opinion, he is a traitor to his race.

I want you to know I had a really hard time squeezing both thought into the same sentence.

Anyone who doesn't agree with me politically is a bad person, and not merely bad, but a clown too. Excuse me while I go have a temper tantrum.

And we are still living with Bushes 2 piss poor decisions for the Supreme Court. One of the things a president shouldent do is appoint a politician to the Supreme Court or judges that are owned by billionares.

Clarence Thomas is a disgrace to the Court. He has been called under qualified and unqualified by so many legal scholars...I suspect he was a very poor choice for that seat.

The "clown in blackface" was an inappropriate remark. George allowed his anger to get the better of him.

Those two statements do not contradict each other.

I'm going to suspect politics unless you can supply names to these "many legal scholars" and a ref .

Suspect whatever you want...for whatever reasons you want.

So you can not supply names to these "many legal scholars" and a reference ?

You also can assume whatever you want to...for whatever reasons you want.

Yes, that is my opinion, that Thomas doesn't have to vote a certain way because of his color. This is true, but coming from the racist environment in which he grew up and were reared under Jim Crow laws, one would think no one would have to suggest he should empathize with the plight of his people. At least throw them a bone every now and then instead of acting as if they deserve the maltreatment they get from society at large.

After having second thoughts, I've come to the conclusion Thomas is a failed human being. In America where the socioeconomic imbalance is so great with respect to African Americans, you would think there would be a little sympathy from a black jurist, at least a little, instead of the open hostility Thomas' image portrays. The persona Thomas projects is that of one in service to gratify his own personal needs. The only energy one see from Thomas is when he's groveling on all fours to the Koch brothers and then you can see every tooth in his mouth he grinning so hard at the "pleasure" to be in their company. Clarence Thomas and every jurist on SCOTUS is supposed to serve the American people; they are not to sell the service of the highest court in the land to private interest or billionaires. Even though I can accept Thomas being hostile to the black race, heck, he's not alone in this category, the fact he and Scalia are working for the Koch brothers is just too damn much.

Clarence Thomas is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Whenever the subject of the US Supreme Court comes up in discussion in the media and the subject comes around to Thomas, the man from Pin Point, Georgia is left wanting....Not one person will speak decently in his defense. No person of high esteem will say Thomas is qualified and on the contrary, they say he is a different breed, a misfit who does not belong in such distinguished company as the others. I dislike Scalia, but not to the extent I dislike Thomas. Scalia is intelligent, he can think, albeit, in the conservative mode. I don't know what the fuk one can call Thomas except he simply does not belong on the United States Supreme court!

Thomas is well renown for not saying anything when court is in session; how can he rationalize his getting an annual salary of $213,900? He sits there like a bump on a log.



There remains the occasional poster I do not expect much from in the way of comprehensive understanding. You appeal to my senses that way.

And you think the default is that "his people" are black people because of the color of his skin. Maybe he thinks his people are Southern conservatives, or judges or rich people. Do you think the other justices are voting for "their people" based on race as well? Maybe they all consider their people to be Americans and they just have different opinions. I really don't care for Thomas or Alito, I think they are significantly lacking in what I hope for in Supreme Court justices, but it's not because their votes don't represent their skin.

Thank you for your opinion. I have my opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas and there I will remain. Perhaps you have convinced others with your logic of which I admire to a degree, and in that area I wish you well.

I appreciate everyone's opinion, thanks. My overriding issue is Thomas' race mattering. I remember years ago broiling about the right of a black person to be a conservative without being vilified as a race-traitor.

I get the arguments, but I think it is demeaning to a black person to say they must adhere to more liberal policies in order to be a legitimate member of their race. I mean, fight the opinion - but racial insult on top of it?

There is in my opinion, a difference between conservatism and teabaggerism, and Thomas ain't the former.

If one is truly dedicated to racial equality, one would not hesitate to criticize Thomas, simply because of the color of his skin. I criticized him, and it had no reference to what opinions he "ought" to entertain because of the color of his skin. You're erecting a straw man, unless and until you address someone who has actually taken that position.

My apologies, Set. I assumed incorrectly that members had read the statement by George Takei, so I only mentioned it. George said Thomas had abdicated his racial heritage due to his decision - hence the quote in the thread title.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/george-takei-clarence-thomas-star-trek/index.html

I read it . . . but your remarks were general, and seemed to me to suggest that Thomas must not be criticized, else one is taking a racist position.