Clarence Thomas: Two MoreTakes

As you all know I have a personal thing going about Clarence Thomas who I believe is an unprincipled opportunist. You know the type, whichever way the political winds are blowing, they are going. So that said, here are two different, though similar takes, on our Junior Justice’s recent spin on his past.

First up is Frank Rich, which is very reasonable and not the least in my opinion snarky, just the facts ma’am, just the facts.

He opens his comments with this:

WHAT'S the difference between a low-tech lynching and a high-tech lynching? A high-tech lynching brings a tenured job on the Supreme Court and a $1.5 million book deal. A low-tech lynching, not so much.

Mr. Rich is so polite. And he lays out his argument beautifully. So read the rest.

Then of course we have the ever so snarky Maureen Dowd who it appears sees her mission in life to throw as much snark at the wall as possible and see what sticks. Well in this instance it is so easy that I think all the snark sticks and for once I am not going to object to her column.

Ms. Dowd does not hold back. She ends with this comment, as if written by the Junior Justice himself, which sums up the whole Thomas revisionist diatribe in which he has shown that he doesn’t display anything which could be qualified as a “Judicial Temperament”:

Al Gore’s true claims didn’t matter in that standoff any more than Anita Hill’s true claims did during my confirmation. That’s the beautiful thing about being a conservative. We don’t push for the truth. We push to win, praise the Lord.

It’s a relief to finally admit it: I’m proud to have hastened Al’s premature political death, hanging by hanging chads. It was, you might say, a low-tech lynching.

So, when we compare Bush 41’s judgment and legacy to Bush 43’s judgment and legacy I think that it is important to keep our Junior SCOTUS Justice in mind. It appears that both 41 and 43 lacked even a modicum of judgment or care to their sworn duty to uphold and defend the U. S. Constitution.

That our Junior Justice sees his confirmation hearing as any kind of lynching was reason alone to reject his confirmation to the highest court in the country. That he was obviously lacking in an understanding of what an actual lynching entailed should have derailed his appointment then. And let’s not even go into his lies (and alleged perjury) about Stare Decisis.

Both Rich and Dowd are MSM and are doing a shout out as opinion writers, but the MSM’s supposedly “objective” Journalists don’t appear to be taking this revisionist history seriously and engaging in the journalistic job of fact checking. Why is that?

Why isn’t he being shamed by the Mainstream Media. Surely they have Google and a memory about his history?

Update: Did I fail to bring up the Bush Legacy and how many gentleman’s C’s at our Elite Universities there are that end up as the “Rulers of the Universe.” Our Junior SCOTUS Justice can complain all he wants but he was recruited as a Third Year by one Senator Danforth, not exactly a lowly position.