dholokov said:
if the book is called my grandfather's son, shouldn't it be a book about the author's father?

And I second the notion that sitting justices should not write vitriolic memoirs,, or really anything at all except judgments.

His father left when he was 3 and his mother sent him to live with his grandfather who he soon started calling 'Dad'... hence the title.

And he does not discuss his colleagues or his work on the court in the book.

dholokov

Toronto, ON

April 2003

OCT 09, 2007 09:50 PM

cowpunk3rd said:

As far as the title, I accept your explanation but stand by my original comment.

And I still say best leave the memoirs for retirement. That's true of anyone but especially true of judges.

hecklongtree

Westhampton Beach, NY

February 2004

OCT 09, 2007 10:23 PM

mojo77 said:

hecklongtree said:
It really galls me when people blame racism, sexism, right-wing conspiracies, etc. on problems that are basically of their own doing.

Thomas' calling his treatment by the Senate Judiciary Committee a "high-tech lynching" doesn't even make sense. Lynching was perpetrated against blacks accused of attacking white women. Here, his accuser, Anita Hill, is black. Black Congressman Mel Reynolds, convicted of, among other things, the statutory rape of his intern also blamed his prosecution on racism. He also failed to mention that the intern was also black.

Discrimination still exists, but it can't be blamed for everything. Thomas, Reynolds and others should stop using it as an excuse for things that are their own fault.

"Lynching was perpetrated against blacks accused of attacking white women."

What?

I guess I'll be the only person of color to offer a counterpoint to what amounts to white people, once again, whining when people suggest that perhaps discrimination DOES, in fact exist and is used to smear the reputations of minorities in a position of power. Regardless of the actual issue.

But, that's not the issue I have. Racism is everywhere. I say deal with it. The Issue I have is with the statement to which I've quoted. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, but then I can consider the source and have a good laugh to myself.

It really galls me when white people pretend to know ANYTHING about what blacks [or any other minority] have gone, and continue to go through in this country. I blame racism for stupid people like you, who in your ignorance, can quote some wiki definition of lynching to prove that somehow vigilanti justice can explain the millions of lynchings and other hangings committed against those not judged by YOUR beloved criminal justice system, most likely due to their skin color and NOT the 'alleged' attack of white women. That's how most white people 'out' themselves from being racist. "Lynching was perpetrated against blacks accused of attacking white women." WTF? Yeah, you're the expert, right? Whatever dude. Think what you want, but you're not proving anything, nor does that have anything to do with Clarence Thomas. The term he used was a metaphor. Because you know nothing about the fear generated by the possibility of being lynched, maybe you should reserve your comments for subjects in which you are knowledgable.

Who are you to judge me? You know nothing about me, my family, or my life. Jews are the most despised group on the planet. We know all about lynchings--only we call them pogroms. As for admissions policies in Ivy League schools, we didn't have affirmative action to help us in--we had quotas to keep us out.

Clarence Thomas criticizes African-Americans for wallowing in victimhood, when Thomas himself wallows in it, calling the Judiciary Hearings "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks"--Thomas's exact words. First of all, Thomas is the same race as his accuser. Second, what's all this stuff about "lynching" and "uppity blacks?" Face reality: Race had nothing to do with it. He was just playing the race card to deflect attention away from the substance of Anita Hill's allegations.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 10, 2007 11:56 AM

oyaji said:

Subrosa said:
Thomas, like Justices Scalia, Alito and (sometimes) Roberts subscribe to the philosophy of Constitutional Originalism, or the belief that the Constitution should only be interpreted through the express intent of the document's framers. In my mind, it's a deeply hypocritical and myopic way to look at the law.

More than this, it is a smokescreen for imposing all sorts of views that the Framers never would have held. The excessive fondness of these so-called strict constructionists for executive power, for example, is a view that was not held by the Framers. The Framers were deeply suspicious of executive power, having just fought a revolutionary war to throw off an arbitrary tyrant who abused executive power (i.e. George III).

Well, yeah. That's what I meant by "hypocritical". They get all huffy about modern jurists inserting their own value system into the Constitutional framework and then go and insert their own value system into the Constitutional framework. And don't even get me started on the impossibility of divining what the framers' "intentions" were. The most obvious question being, "Which framer?".

Gylrek

Chula Vista, CA

August 2007

OCT 10, 2007 12:02 PM

I believe you should follow what the "express intent" of the founders,after all they left a way to change the Constitution through Amendments,but Libals and Dems refuse to use this process . instead they wish to have a few judges reintepret the constitution based on their beliefs and biases . This was a well written article . keep up the good writing

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

OCT 10, 2007 12:08 PM

Gylrek said:
I believe you should follow what the "express intent" of the founders,after all they left a way to change the Constitution through Amendments,but Libals and Dems refuse to use this process . instead they wish to have a few judges reintepret the constitution based on their beliefs and biases .

Way to blame "Libals and Dems" for Marbury v. Madison.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 10, 2007 12:13 PM

While I thank you for the compliment, like I said, which framer? There were lots of them. Which express intent? Should we look at the federalist papers alone or do the other writings surrounding the Constitution also have wieght? Since the people who voted on ratification were actually the people that approved the Constitution, shouldn't we then look at the debates leading up to the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? In which state? What if the debates in one state came to one conclusion about a particular passage and the debates in another came to another? (For the record, I can provide you with examples of exactly this happening.) What about the fact that (at least some) of the framers intended the Supreme Court to not only be the final arbiter of what the Constitution did and did not say, but also how it should be applied in the future?

Constitutional Originalism, the philosophy you advocate, simply ignores all of these points and pretends to invent some sort of "express" meaning that the Framers intended the words to mean. It doesn't exist. It's total mythology.

zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

OCT 10, 2007 02:01 PM

Uncognitive said:

Way to blame "Libals and Dems" for Marbury v. Madison.

Chief Justice Marshall was a well-known Libal Dem.

chikinhammr

Orlando, FL

April 2006

OCT 11, 2007 08:00 PM

Subrosa is a fucking hack lawyer and a long-winded hack lawyer at that.

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY

February 2004

OCT 11, 2007 08:08 PM

chikinhammr said:
Subrosa is a fucking hack lawyer and a long-winded hack lawyer at that.

*confused*
is this an old grudge? you can certainly call hiim a hack writer.

HEY EVERYBODY! DAN "SUBROSA" FOGELTINE IS NOT A WRITER THAT WRITES GOOD!

but calling hm a long winded lawyer is sort of repetative.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

OCT 11, 2007 08:08 PM

chikinhammr said:
Subrosa is a fucking hack lawyer and a long-winded hack lawyer at that.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 11, 2007 08:14 PM

chikinhammr said:
Subrosa is a fucking hack lawyer and a long-winded hack lawyer at that.

Brilliant contribution as usual.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 11, 2007 08:38 PM

attn_ho said:
HEY EVERYBODY! DAN "SUBROSA" FOGELTINE IS NOT A WRITER THAT WRITES GOOD!

My friends call me Danny.

PAGE:

1 | 2

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

OCT 09, 2007 07:51 PM

New Zealand

December 2005

OCT 09, 2007 09:31 PM

Toronto, ON

April 2003

OCT 09, 2007 09:50 PM

Westhampton Beach, NY

February 2004

OCT 09, 2007 10:23 PM

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 10, 2007 11:56 AM

Chula Vista, CA

August 2007

OCT 10, 2007 12:02 PM

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

OCT 10, 2007 12:08 PM

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 10, 2007 12:13 PM

zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

OCT 10, 2007 02:01 PM

chikinhammr

Orlando, FL

April 2006

OCT 11, 2007 08:00 PM

Brooklyn, NY

February 2004

OCT 11, 2007 08:08 PM

Germany

July 2006

OCT 11, 2007 08:08 PM

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 11, 2007 08:14 PM

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

OCT 11, 2007 08:38 PM