What the reactions to Clarence Thomas post-Roe reveal about white liberals - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15237318
What the reactions to Clarence Thomas post-Roe reveal about white liberals
By Musa al-Gharbi, Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia University

NBCNews.com, July 7, 2022

Soon after the court handed down its decision, some pro-choice advocates began hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks at the justice.

There were six Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade last week. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito. However, in the aftermath of the ruling, there has been an intense and particular focus on a different justice: Clarence Thomas.

Soon after the court handed down its decision, some pro-choice advocates began hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks in Thomas’ direction (including liberal evocations of the “N-word” on Twitter) — often to the acclaim of some other left-aligned whites.

The remarks were so ubiquitous that “Uncle Clarence” began trending on Twitter, a reference to the eponymous character of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” who has emerged as a symbol of Black men who are too subservient to whites.

In practice, the term is primarily deployed against Black people who strike positions that elite liberals find distasteful. For instance, “Uncle Tim” previously trended on Twitter after Black Republican Sen. Tim Scott’s rebuttal of President Joe Biden’s inaugural address to a joint session of Congress.

Then again, in other cases, minorities who violate the preferences and sensibilities of liberals are literally declared to be white instead. At least insofar as Thomas and Scott are branded as race-traitors, critics still recognize their race.

However, there is a deep irony in characterizing Thomas as an “Uncle Tom” (or worse) given that, prior to pursuing public service, he identified with Black nationalism. He is currently married to a white woman and has aligned with the GOP. However, as political theorist Corey Robin has shown in his book “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas,” his views on race and racial issues have remained highly consistent over the course of his life.

Indeed, Thomas’ embrace of the Republican Party is consonant with a deep mistrust of white liberals, the institutions they control and the policies they try to advance in the name of “social justice.”

This mistrust was widely shared among Black activists of his generation — and is in keeping with Thomas’ Supreme Court decisions, including overturning Roe. If anything, the racialized attacks many liberals directed at Thomas in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling confirm the pessimistic view of race relations that prevailed among many of the Black thinkers who shaped Thomas’ worldview and is exhibited by Thomas himself.

For instance, Thomas was deeply inspired by Malcolm X. He had a poster of Malcolm X that hung in his dorm room. He memorized many of his speeches by heart, and he continues to evoke him frequently to this day.

It was Malcolm X, of course, who famously declared that, “In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negros (i.e. the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power.”

He argued that white liberals and white conservatives differ “only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor.” He continued, “By winning the friendship, allegiance and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or a tool.”

A 2019 New Yorker profile reported that Thomas also supported Black Panther leader Kathleen Cleaver and Communist Party member Angela Davis, both of whom had been wanted by police.

“When he was asked at his confirmation hearings what he majored in, Thomas said, ‘English literature.’ When he was asked what he minored in, he said, ‘protest,’” the article notes, pointing out that his first visit to Washington was to march against the Vietnam War and the last rally he went to demanded the release of two Black Panthers. “I was never a liberal,” the article quotes him as saying at a talk in 1996. “I was a radical.”

Thomas seems to have been put on this path by the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. King had advanced a particularly optimistic view of white liberals and cross-racial advocacy. However, in the months leading up to his death, even he was forced to concede that “Negros have proceeded from a premise that equality means what it says, and they have taken white America at their word when they talked of it as an objective.”

In contrast, he wrote, most whites “proceed from a premise that equality is a loose expression for improvement. White America is not even psychologically organized to close the gap — essentially, it seeks only to make it less painful and less obvious but in most respects to retain it. Most abrasions between Negros and white liberals arise from this fact.”

The political theorist Robin notes that, in the aftermath of King’s assassination, which occurred when he was a student at Holy Cross in Worcester, “by his own report, Thomas has a realization that nobody is going to do anything for black people. And by nobody, he means white liberals and white leftists.”

By the time Thomas arrived at Yale Law School, he was militant on racial matters and more-or-less fully disillusioned with mainstream liberalism. Hillary Clinton, who overlapped with him in the early ’70s, recently declared that as long as she has known Thomas, he’s always been filled with “grievance,” “anger” and “resentment.” Unsaid, but critical context: These were feelings Thomas displayed toward white liberals in particular (like Clinton herself), who dominated Yale at the time, and who continue to dominate elite spaces today.

Thomas noted in a recent interview that people regularly assume he has difficulties around other Black people by virtue of his politics. “It’s just the opposite,” he declared. “The only people with whom I’ve had difficulties are white, liberal elites who consider themselves the anointed and us the benighted … I have never had issues with members of my race.”

In fact, there have been many prominent Black intellectuals and leaders whose Black nationalist-inflected mistrust of white liberals ultimately led them to conservativism. For Thomas, it was the work of Black economist Thomas Sowell that ultimately helped him channel his misgivings toward “white saviors” into a coherent, right-aligned political philosophy.

wever, Black nationalist impulses continue to influence his rulings and judicial philosophy. For instance, core to Thomas’ thinking, per Robin, is “a belief in Black self-defense.” This commitment undergirds Thomas’ staunch support for the Second Amendment. It also plays a role in his opposition to abortion.

Thomas has expressed repeatedly that his aversion to abortion is significantly informed by its deep and longstanding ties to racial eugenics programs. It should be noted that these eugenics initiatives were pushed heavily by white liberals of the time, also in the name of helping the marginalized and disadvantaged. Thomas has no trust in similar social justice rhetoric being deployed by abortion rights advocates today.

Instead, the reactions many contemporary liberals have directed toward Thomas for diverging from their preferred policies on abortion — including an unabashed embrace of racial epithets and slurs, in the name of social justice advocacy no less! — seem to be a clear vindication of Black nationalists’ longstanding suspicion that, at bottom, many self-described “allies” are themselves deeply racist and simply use the Black cause as a convenient vehicle for shoring up their own power and influence.

As cultural critic Yasmin Nair put it in a tweet on Saturday, “Clarence Thomas is not your ‘I can be a racist’ card, people.” This is something that should never even have to be said to those ostensibly committed to social justice. The fact that it apparently must be said is telling.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/s ... -rcna36261
#15237403
The article is factually incorrect.

I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but I believe Thomas has been an embarrassment since his appointment. And his wife's political activities call to question his impartiality as a judge. Recent statements he has made about cases that might come before him in the future are a violation of the ethics rules that have guided SCOTUS judges for a long time.

With only 19 months of experience as a judge and none as an educator, he is one of the least qualified people to serve on the court in recent memory.
#15237419
BlutoSays wrote:
All the leftist racialists (redundant) on the forum sure are quiet. i wonder why?



I did a 20 mile ride on my e-cycle this morning.

The uproar is over the repeated ethics violations, and his expressed desire to kill a lot of unenumerated rights. But not Loving, of course.

He's not a judge, just a political hack in a black robe.

Speaking of racists, the way Ketanji Jackson was treated was disgusting. It's a real shame she has to share the court with so many incompetent hacks.
#15237430
wat0n wrote:
I don't think the uproar would justify the racial slurs. Surely most people can agree on this? :?:



The Right did literally tens of thousands of racial slurs over Obama. Not to mention getting even more radical...

The Jackson hearings were vile.

Also, the things I read and watch wouldn't use racial slurs to begin with. So it's nothing I've seen, or said, or have any interest in. It's also prob less vile than the nearly constant racism of the Right..

Remove the log from thine eye.. to borrow a saying.
#15237433
late wrote:The Right did literally tens of thousands of racial slurs over Obama. Not to mention getting even more radical...

The Jackson hearings were vile.

Also, the things I read and watch wouldn't use racial slurs to begin with. So it's nothing I've seen, or said, or have any interest in. It's also prob less vile than the nearly constant racism of the Right..

Remove the log from thine eye.. to borrow a saying.


Article refers to social media I think.

Did anyone use the n-word against Jackson in the hearings?
#15237479
Drlee wrote:The article is factually incorrect.

I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination but I believe Thomas has been an embarrassment since his appointment. And his wife's political activities call to question his impartiality as a judge. Recent statements he has made about cases that might come before him in the future are a violation of the ethics rules that have guided SCOTUS judges for a long time.

With only 19 months of experience as a judge and none as an educator, he is one of the least qualified people to serve on the court in recent memory.


If the article is factually incorrect, you can point out the incorrect statements.
#15237480
late wrote:I did a 20 mile ride on my e-cycle this morning.

The uproar is over the repeated ethics violations, and his expressed desire to kill a lot of unenumerated rights. But not Loving, of course.

He's not a judge, just a political hack in a black robe.

Speaking of racists, the way Ketanji Jackson was treated was disgusting. It's a real shame she has to share the court with so many incompetent hacks.


Horseshit. Katanji was treated with kid gloves.
#15237481
BlutoSays wrote:
Katanji was treated with kid gloves.



"The juxtaposition of Jackson’s calm, confident, professionalism with the hostile, cynical and contemptuous questioning by senators such as Texas senator Ted Cruz is an object lesson for the entire world on the ongoing dynamics of systemic racism in the United States.

Rather than do their constitutional duty of engage with a prospective supreme court justice on the pressing legal issues of the day, the Republican committee members have opted to throw racist red meat to their rabid white supporters who are gripped by fear of people of color. Cruz led the charge with his attacks on critical race theory, asking Jackson whether she agrees “that babies are racist” and trying to paint the judge as a dangerous person who would force white children to learn about racism.

There is a long history in this country of the leaders of white people trying to force Black people to denounce anti-racist movements as a condition for entry into the highest precincts of power (Cruz is Latino, but his base is largely white). In 2008, the media tried to force Barack Obama to denounce his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s statements forcefully condemning white supremacy. Two decades earlier, Jesse Jackson was dogged by demands that he distance himself from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The point of said attacks is to try to weaken support for the Black person one way or another. Either they distance themselves from Black leaders and movements, thereby diminishing Black enthusiasm, or they refuse to renounce anti-racist voices, and that refusal is then used to scare white people.

The very fact that Jackson’s nomination is historic and not routine is a profound indictment of the United States of America. Hour after hour, question after question, Judge Jackson – secure in the knowledge that she is simply the latest talented Black woman and not the first – is calmly, confidently and politely taking a wrecking ball to the myth that America is a meritocracy. And the implications of that scare the Republicans to death."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... cist-fears
#15237487
late wrote:"The juxtaposition of Jackson’s calm, confident, professionalism with the hostile, cynical and contemptuous questioning by senators such as Texas senator Ted Cruz is an object lesson for the entire world on the ongoing dynamics of systemic racism in the United States.

Rather than do their constitutional duty of engage with a prospective supreme court justice on the pressing legal issues of the day, the Republican committee members have opted to throw racist red meat to their rabid white supporters who are gripped by fear of people of color. Cruz led the charge with his attacks on critical race theory, asking Jackson whether she agrees “that babies are racist” and trying to paint the judge as a dangerous person who would force white children to learn about racism.

There is a long history in this country of the leaders of white people trying to force Black people to denounce anti-racist movements as a condition for entry into the highest precincts of power (Cruz is Latino, but his base is largely white). In 2008, the media tried to force Barack Obama to denounce his pastor Jeremiah Wright’s statements forcefully condemning white supremacy. Two decades earlier, Jesse Jackson was dogged by demands that he distance himself from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The point of said attacks is to try to weaken support for the Black person one way or another. Either they distance themselves from Black leaders and movements, thereby diminishing Black enthusiasm, or they refuse to renounce anti-racist voices, and that refusal is then used to scare white people.

The very fact that Jackson’s nomination is historic and not routine is a profound indictment of the United States of America. Hour after hour, question after question, Judge Jackson – secure in the knowledge that she is simply the latest talented Black woman and not the first – is calmly, confidently and politely taking a wrecking ball to the myth that America is a meritocracy. And the implications of that scare the Republicans to death."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... cist-fears


Horseshit, again. There was no racism exhibited towards her. She was questioned much more lightly than say a Kavanaugh, Alito, or Gorsuch.


Furthermore, you gave us an OPED by:

"Steve Phillips is the founder of Democracy in Color and author of Brown is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority" :roll:
#15237492
BlutoSays wrote:

Furthermore, you gave us an OPED by:

"Steve Phillips is the founder of Democracy in Color and author of Brown is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority"




"As a constitutional law professor who focuses on the Supreme Court, I find it striking that race has surfaced in such a major way in these hearings, more than five decades after Marshall’s nomination. In some respects, there has been progress on racial equity in the U.S., but aspects of these hearings demonstrate that too much remains the same.

In addition to the explicit interrogations of Jackson’s views on race, her hearings – like Marshall’s – have featured a preoccupation with the nominee’s views on crime.

Fearmongering about crime often carries a racialized connotation, whether blatant or unspoken. Media distortions and carceral inequities fuel the myth that Black and brown men are presumptively criminal.

Jackson’s actual sentencing record reveals no anomalies or disproportionate leniency when compared with that of other judges nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

But Jackson’s hearing was a flashback to Marshall’s August 1967 confirmation hearing, when Sen. John McClellan questioned Marshall and suggested that he did not take crime seriously.

Republicans now sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee have conflated legal representation of criminal defendants with a disregard for the rule of law and public safety.

Republican Sens. Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Cruz, Hawley, Tom Cotton and Cornyn have gone far beyond insinuation to outright vilification of Jackson’s legal representation of criminal defendants."

https://theconversation.com/ketanji-bro ... ngs-177306

You're lying, and you know you're lying. It's why you come here..
#15237505
late wrote:"As a constitutional law professor who focuses on the Supreme Court, I find it striking that race has surfaced in such a major way in these hearings, more than five decades after Marshall’s nomination. In some respects, there has been progress on racial equity in the U.S., but aspects of these hearings demonstrate that too much remains the same.

In addition to the explicit interrogations of Jackson’s views on race, her hearings – like Marshall’s – have featured a preoccupation with the nominee’s views on crime.

Fearmongering about crime often carries a racialized connotation, whether blatant or unspoken. Media distortions and carceral inequities fuel the myth that Black and brown men are presumptively criminal.

Jackson’s actual sentencing record reveals no anomalies or disproportionate leniency when compared with that of other judges nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

But Jackson’s hearing was a flashback to Marshall’s August 1967 confirmation hearing, when Sen. John McClellan questioned Marshall and suggested that he did not take crime seriously.

Republicans now sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee have conflated legal representation of criminal defendants with a disregard for the rule of law and public safety.

Republican Sens. Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Cruz, Hawley, Tom Cotton and Cornyn have gone far beyond insinuation to outright vilification of Jackson’s legal representation of criminal defendants."

https://theconversation.com/ketanji-bro ... ngs-177306

You're lying, and you know you're lying. It's why you come here..


No, you and Phillips are both lying dog faced pony soldiers. :D

Candidate Katanji was never accused of X,Y, or Z by Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick.

She was never Borked like democrats love to do in SCOTUS nominations. She was never questioned on her religious affiliations like Roberts was by Feinstein for the 'HORROR!' of being a Catholic.

That's the DNC/DCCC Deathstar at work. I only WISH the Republicans had served up the same to democrat nominees.
#15237547
BlutoSays wrote:
No, you and Phillips are both lying dog faced pony soldiers.


She was never Borked like democrats love to do in SCOTUS nominations.

She was never questioned on her religious affiliations like Roberts was by Feinstein for the 'HORROR!' of being a Catholic.

That's the DNC/DCCC Deathstar at work. I only WISH the Republicans had served up the same to democrat nominees.



You always make assertions you can't back up. That's the polite way of saying you're a compulsive liar.

There used to be the Political Asylum, and the Mod was BrucefromDC. He's a high powered DC lawyer that did international law. He was extremely conservative, he was fine with Republican corruption in elections. Anyway, one day we talked about Bork, he knew the guy, and didn't think he had the judicial temperament to be a SC justice. The Whitewater investigation ran out of time before they got to Bork. He's an early example of a political hack pretending to be a judge..

You're missing the obvious. We knew Federalist Society candidates were liars, they wanted assurances, but they knew she was going to lie. In addition, she's in a cult-like sect that needed to be talked about.


Deathstar, huh. If it was a Deathstar there wouldn't be a majority of Right wing extremists running the court. You're projecting.

https://twitter.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1781137192[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I love how everybody is rambling about printing m[…]

Desantis made it illegal for cities in Florida to […]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

Honestly I think you should give up on hoping to […]