Clarence Thomas: ‘Northern Liberal Elites’ Treated Me Worse Than Segregated South

Anybody who understands the true dichotomy of Godless, white liberals shouldn't be surprised at this:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at Palm Beach Atlantic University on Tuesday, and used the occasion to say the United States is still way too sensitive about racial issues, lamenting how much “more race and difference-conscious” the country is now than in the 1960s. He said race “rarely” came up when he became the first black child to go to a white school in Savannah, Georgia.

Nowadays, however, you can’t escape people being overly sensitive about race and sex, Thomas said, and revealed that he was treated much worse Northern liberals than by anyone in the South.

“The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites. The absolute worst I have ever been treated,” Thomas said. “The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

Just last year Thomas said “elites and the media” disapprove of and go after any black person who doesn’t fit the “prescribed” mold they expect.

RELATED:  'Segregation Forever': A Fiery Pledge Forgiven, But Not Forgotten

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/3/11

Kagan, Thomas Targeted In Hopes Of Swaying Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling

Health Care, Other Hot Issues Promise A Landmark High Court Term

The Radio-Controlled Airplane Jihad 

Why The Federal Deficit Is So Large 

Hugo Chavez: The Networks' Favorite Dictator

Chinese One-Child Policy To Be Focus Of Congressional Hearing

Barack Obama: 'Incredible Champion' Of Gay Rights

Andy Rooney Recognized Media's Liberalism And Espoused It Himself

The Obama Presidency: By The Numbers

The Coming Post-Obama Renaissance

Clarence Thomas to Supreme Court Critics: You're Bums

Ha! Gotta love it. Of all the stupid and lazy criticism towards Justice Thomas from the Left, the recent round of critiquing his 5-year silence on the bench takes the cake. I mean, would the Left give a damn if Ruth Ginsberg was silent for 5 years as long as she kept voting the way they want/expect her too? Good to see Justice Thomas call 'em out for what he sees 'em:

Many critics of the Supreme Court hone in on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, alleging that he lacks intellect and flexibility. Well Thomas has a few choice words to offer back at them, The Augusta Chronicle reports. The critics of court decisions suffer from “a disease of illiteracy or laziness” that could weaken the law, he said at a speech to the Augusta, Ga. Bar Association.


“Cynics” who are “drunk on their own opinions” don’t impress Thomas. “You don’t go to a Georgia fan to get commentary on the University of Florida, because it’s not objective commentary,” he said.


“Unfortunately, much of the commentary about the court is from the standpoint of people who have vested interests in particular outcomes, particular policies or particular results. Do you think you are getting an honest assessment?”


Meanwhile, Thomas drew flak from some civil rights leaders for speaking Wednesday at the opening of a new courthouse in Augusta named for John Ruffin Jr., the first black chief judge on the Georgia Court of Appeals. Critics call Thomas an inappropriate choice given his conservative views, the Georgia Daily Journal reports.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/28/11

Defense Sec: Libya Did Not Pose Threat To U.S., Was Not 'Vital National Interest' To Intervene

Donald Trump Won't Back Off Obama's Birth Papers

The Anthony Weiner Waiver Wormhole

Why Liberals Hate Clarence Thomas And Sarah Palin

Obama's Fiscal Policies Doom Retirement For Millions

The Atheist Mormon-Trashing Musical

CBO: Employment, Economic Output Not Expected To Recover Until 2016

Target Sues San Diego Homosexual Group

Huffington Post Axes Andrew Breitbart 

Hispanics Become U.S. 2nd Largest Group With 50.5 Million

Megyn Kelly: Is Anthony Weiner Aiding Efforts To Have Justice Clarence Thomas Disbarred?

Mediaite.com:

Megyn Kelly discussed reports that Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner is leading a charge to have Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disbarred for perjury and investigated for allegations of bribery. Weiner has passionately argued before for Thomas to recuse himself for cases on healthcare reform because of an alleged bias, and now if these reports are true, Weiner is intensifying the fight.


Kelly interviewed Supreme Court expert Tom Goldstein regarding the unprecedented potential action against Thomas. Goldstein agreed judicial integrity is important, but dismissed the complaints against Thomas as “pretty stupid” and “baseless accusations” that treat Supreme Court justices a political actors. Even if Thomas made a mistake on some forms not disclosing facts about his wife, Goldstein argued despite being a serious error, it’s not one that calls into question Thomas’ legitimacy as a judge. Accordingly, Goldstein predicted that even the liberal Supreme Court justices would rally to Thomas’ defense.

Anthony Weiner is a whiny little prick with a serious Napolean complex. Conservatives should love the idea that he's trying to take down a Supreme Court justice--just the kind of thing we need to rally the base and piss off most independents a well.

Megyn Kelly And Anthony Weiner Engage In Shouting Match Over Clarence Thomas

I swear Anthony Weiner reminds me that kid who got picked last in pickup games growing up so he gets revenge by taking the ball away and running home with it so then no one can play:

Today Megyn Kelly welcomed Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner back to her show, and fans of their last heated exchange who were hoping for some more fireworks between the two were not at all disappointed. Weiner adamantly believed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from hearing a case on the constitutionality of healthcare reform due to the financial interests of his wife that give off the appearance of bias. When Kelly began to dispute whether that was legally necessary Weiner began to get agitated.


Weiner frequently appears on Fox News and his detractors might claim he just as frequently ends up yelling to make his point or looking frustrated when not given enough time. Here he questions whether Kelly knows the definition of an “interview” while also discussing the differences between facts and opinion and disputing Fox’s “coverage” of any issue. Kelly humorously asks when is it her turn to speak? By the end of the conversation who even knows what issue they are discussing anymore and who cares, because every Kelly/Weiner confrontation is a memorably exciting event. These two need to take their act on the road!

New York Times Editorializes for Justice Clarence Thomas to Talk More to Show He's Not Corrupt

Newsbusters.org:

A Friday New York Times editorial, “The Thomas Issue,” furthered the paper’s fevered crusade against Justice Clarence Thomas, piggybacking on Adam Liptak’s front-page Sunday story on the vital matter of Thomas’s failure to ask questions during Supreme Court oral argument.


The Times actually argued that Thomas should speak up more to ensure the public that he is open-minded, while claiming that Thomas's five-year “milestone” of silence (one first marked in the Times) “has stirred a wide conversation about his effectiveness as a justice.” Stirred up solely by the Times, by the available evidence.


When the Supreme Court hears arguments next week, it will mark the fifth anniversary of Justice Clarence Thomas’s silence during oral argument -- unless he chooses to re-enter the give-and-take. We hope he will.


This milestone has stirred a wide conversation about his effectiveness as a justice following another about his ethics. They are actually related. How Justice Thomas comports himself on the bench is a matter of ethics and effectiveness, simultaneously. His authority as a justice and the court’s as an institution are at issue.


The editorial repeated tired accusations from the left-wing Common Cause alleging Thomas's conflict of interest based on his wife’s lobbying and Thomas’s attendance at a political event sponsored by conservative philanthropists Charles and David Koch. Common Cause led a protest outside that event filled with racist and violent comments about Thomas that the paper has yet to acknowledge.


Then there was this hypocritical expression of concern:


Taking part in oral arguments would be good for the justice and the court. In a landmark article about judging, the scholar John Leubsdorf said a justice should abide by three principles: avoid basing a vote on personal considerations; avoid basing a vote on facts learned outside the case; and consider both sides’ arguments. Taking part in arguments is a way for Justice Thomas to convey that he honors the third principle. By engaging with lawyers for both sides in cases and showing open-mindedness in exchanges with them, he would show his dedication to the court’s impartiality and to its integrity as an institution.


As if the left-wing Times editorial page would respect Thomas any more if he did start to express himself.

NAACP Has “No Comment” on Racist Remarks Leveled at Clarence Thomas

In other words they only support Blacks who kowtow and live by their agenda:

The NAACP won’t directly address the racism displayed by progressive protesters outside a summit hosted by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch at the end of January in Palm Springs, Calif., but the organization did call for an end to all “vitriolic language.”


In response to The Daily Caller’s request for comment on a video showing progressive protesters calling for somebody to “string up” African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, or “send him back into the fields” or “cut off all his toes and feed them to him one-by-one,” NAACP spokesman Hilary Shelton pointed to the organization’s recent resolution calling for a “civil political discourse.”


“Last summer, the NAACP passed a resolution calling for a civil political discourse,” Shelton said in an e-mail to TheDC. “We continue to call on all Americans to abandon vitriolic language. It serves as a distraction from the real issues our society need to address and distorts the challenges we as Americans have to confront to make our nation greater still.”


Shelton would not, however, address the content of the video directly.

White Liberals Call For Lynching of Clarence Thomas

Remember, according to the MSM the "politics of hatred" only exist on the Right:

I recently took a two-day trip down to Palm Springs to attend an event called “Uncloaking the Kochs” hosted by Common Cause. Accompanied by my dear friend, former assembly candidate Alvaro Day, I traveled as an independent investigative journalist, and not in any official capacity on behalf of Big Government or Breitbart.com (though I was pleasantly surprised to run into a familiar friend of mine on rollerblades jovially inviting everyone to Applebee’s).


Among Common Cause’s, well, common causes, are campaign finance reform, net neutrality, outlawing the filibuster, promoting cap and trade, and in this particular case, herding a mass of protesters outside a nearby hotel to yell at Charles and David Koch for being conservative and rich.


Unfortunately several “haves” have missed the memo that you’re not to be both rich and conservative at the same time, and that bankrolling your pet causes is an extra no-no if you’re conservative—thus exempting left-wing billionaire philanthropists George Soros (from whom Common Cause has received $2 million over the past eight years) Peter Lewis, John Doerr, Julian Robertson, Nicolas Berggruen, and many others from being yelled at too.


At the morning panel event featuring UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, activist Jim Hightower, Center for American Progress journalist and “Koch Brothers expert” Lee Fang, California Nurses Association co-president DeAnn McEwan, and President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones, we were forewarned of the impending demise of both the environment and democracy at the hands of corporate lobbyists and their government shills.


There was eerily no mention of GE, AEP, Goldmann Sachs, Pfizer, Aetna, Alcoa, Xerox, Google, Motorola, IBM, or several other corporate giants who profit at taxpayer expense via their K Street connections to the Obama White House as well as the very economic and regulatory policies they lobby that these Common Cause panelists commonly endorse. But I’m sure that’s only because no one wanted to point out the obvious. Right?


We were then ushered outside to the parking lot across from the hotel in which the Koch brothers were holding a meeting, whereupon we were encouraged to yell at the building, decrying not only the Kochs, but Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia for their Citizens United ruling. Oh, and Fox News while we were at it.

Clarence Thomas' Idiot Wife Asks Anita Hill For Apology

Here's the deal: like Robert Bork before him, the Left did everything they could to smear and create an atmosphere of hate around Clarence Thomas, a lame attempt to prevent him from joining the Supreme Court. But thank goodness they failed . . . barely and now Justice Thomas has been on SCOTUS for almost 20 years, while the tool that is Anita Hill remains...well, a tool or better yet, a bitter footnote in the halls of liberal shame. In other words, Clarence Thomas won and remains a hero to many conservatives around the country. So why on earth would his wife be dumb enough to call Anita Hill 20 years later expecting an apology?!? Really now, just because one's a tool doesn't mean they're stupid:

Anita Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment almost derailed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' high court nomination, has no plans to apologize for the charges she made nearly two decades ago.


The response from Hill, now a law professor at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, comes after a message left for her over the weekend by Thomas' wife, Virginia, who requested an apology.

Charles Radin, the Brandeis director of news and communications, said Hill received the voicemail message and turned it over to the campus Department of Public Safety, which then turned it over to the FBI.
Special Agent Jason Pack, an FBI spokesman in Washington, declined to comment late Tuesday.

"I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill said in a statement to CNN issued by Brandeis. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

In a statement to CNN, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas said: "I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended."

According to a source at Brandeis who spoke on condition of not being identified, the message left over the weekend said:

"Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/31/10

'Well Control' Problems Reported In March, BP E-mails Show, Jindal Slams Obama

Honoring The Dead: U.S. Saves War Memorials In Iraq

Ginni Thomas: Democrats Imposing Tyranny

Issa: Explanation Of Sestak Deal Is Bad Cover-up Of Crime

The Error Of Rand Paul

TIME Alleges Pope Benedict XVI's Guilt In Abuse 'Trial' Cover Story

FDA Launches Process To Lift Ban On Gays Donating Blood

Senate Considers Union Pension Bailout

Jan Brewer Removes AG From Legal Team 


What Would A Euro Collapse Mean For The United States?

Clarence Thomas Defends SCOTUS Ruling For Corporations 1st Amendment Rights

WaPo.com:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told Florida law students that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend money on political candidates.

Thomas spoke Tuesday at Stetson University and defended the Supreme Court's recent decision that corporations and unions can spend freely from their treasuries to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

"I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company," Thomas said, according to a report in The New York Times. "These are corporations."

Thomas, who is scheduled to talk to University of Florida law students Thursday, voted with the majority last month in the 5-4 decision. The ruling earned a public scolding from President Obama during his State of the Union address last week.

Thomas did not directly address the flap over Obama's remarks, but he told Stetson students he wasn't there to hear them in person.

"I dont go because it has become so partisan and it's very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there," he said, adding that "theres a lot that you don't hear on TV - the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments."

Barry's disrespect of the Supreme Court, for making a decision that he didn't like, was a serious breach of protocol and a downright diss to the separation of powers laid out in our Constitution. The President doesn't tell SCOTUS how to vote and I don't blame Justice Thomas for not showing up to watch Barry speak from the bully pulpit. More justices should follow his lead.

Liberals Go Crazy Over Supreme Court Easing Campaign Finance Rules

I don't know if this is a victory for conservatives so much as another display of how much power Justice Another Kennedy yields from the bench. With 4 decided conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thomas) on one side and 4 liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer & Sotomayor) on the other, Kennedy remains SCOTUS' swing vote and more often than not, he sides with the conservatives. That said, considering the billions Barry got for his own Presidential campaign I don't know what he's complaining about here. Then too with all the rage liberals are hurling at this decision, I'm sure a majority of them would love nothing more than for something to happen to Kennedy soon so Barry can replace him with another "leftist stalwart".

Clarence Thomas Trying To Put A Stop To Barack's Election?

Seems that some empty-headed, Black liberals rags are tossing around this rumor that Enemy No. 1 on the Black Lib list, Clarence Thomas, is making a concerted, albeit longshot, effort to halt Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration. Apparently, after David Souter quickly rejected it, a lawsuit by New Jersey resident Leo Donofrio challenging Obama's U.S. citizenship will still be reviewed by SCOTUS tomorrow after Thomas insisted on it:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's election. The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer's supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation's highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells.

Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.

The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes, who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault.

This is funny, especially if Clarance Thomas is really behind it...considering all the hate and abuse Clarance has taken from Black libs over the years I wouldn't past him to say, "f-ck it" just so he could get his hands a little grimy by trying to put a stop to the Messiah. Then too, this whole thing could be fixed if Barack just showed us all his damn birth certificate. What's the big deal? What's he got to hide? Surely no one lost the key to the vault? Ok, now I'm sounding like another dumb, conspiracy theorist. God knows if BO ever did produce his birth certificate, the conspiracy nuts would then claim it was forged.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/30/08

Resentment Simmers In Obama, Clinton Camps

Bobby Jindal Signs Law Allowing Intelligent Design In Louisiana Schools

Robert Mugabe Begins New Term After His One-Man Election

Young Evangelicals Launch 'Jesus For President'

Wesley Clark Takes Shots At McCain's Military Record

Spanish Parliament Passes Human Rights For Apes

5 Million Acres of Corn, Soybeans May Be Lost To Floods

Bill Clinton Says Obama Must 'Kiss My Ass' For His Support

Why Barack Owes Clarence Thomas

Anglicans Face Wider Split Over Policy Towards Gays

Did Obama Supporters Shut Down Anti-Obama Blogs On Google?

Politiks As Usual: In The News 10/22/07

Clarence Thomas: Law Degree Worth 15 Cents

7 Most Dangerous Lies Your Doctor Is Telling You!

"God" Banned From 'Ten Commandments' Movie Ads

Another Liberal Noose-Ance

Liberal Talk-show Host Randi Rhodes Lied About Mugging

Georgia Declares State Of Emergency Due To Drought

Bill Maher Throws 9/11 Truthers Off 'Real Time" Set

'Middle School Kids Are Having Sex'!

Clarence Thomas Needs To Let Anita Hill Go

Justice Clarence Thomas' has a new memoir out, "My Grandfather's Son", and it's making quiet a bit of noise in the press due to Thomas' comments concerning Anita Hill who he calls a "mediocre employee" amongst other things in his new book. Perhaps that wasn't a wise thing for Justice Thomas to do as of course, since the notorious Senate Conformation Hearings are the only thing she'll ever be known for Hill responds to Thomas in the NYTimes:

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court. But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

Personally, while he every right to still be upset at having to go through the whole ordeal, I just think Clarence Thomas needs to let go of whatever anger he has left towards Anita Hill. Hill wasn't as responsible for the "high-tech lynching" Thomas received at the infamous 91' hearings as much as Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberal Democrats who were trying to make Thomas into another Robert Bork. To be fair Hill didn't contact the liberal terrorists about any alleged sexual harassment, they contacted her. Therefore, at the end of the day Anita Hill was just a tool in a pathetic, high-level campaign of liberal terrorism.

Bottom line, even tho the witchhunt made his vote notably narrow, Thomas was still elected to serve on the highest court in the land. In other words he won. And now some 17 years later and the only people upset with Thomas serving on the Court are liberals. But who cares what they think? Most of America certainkt doesn't as after the hearings were done twice as many Americans believed Thomas' side of the story than Hill's. So while Thomas couldn't possibly write a memoir without recalling some of the most darkest days of his distinguised career, by holding a grudge so many years later against Anita Hill all these years later, he makes himself look angry and sullen.

Other's Blogging: Conservatism With Heart, Narcissistic Views, Dave's World

Thomas Got In; So Should Miers

A date has finally been set to begin the Harriet Miers confirmation proceedings.

But trouble is still a brewing.

Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican, referring to Harriet Miers, is quoted as saying that, "It is unfair to start the hearings before she's ready." Liberal senator Chuck Schumer says that Miers needs "some time to learn" about key constitutional cases. Why? Because Schumer didn't like the answers he got to cases he presented to Miers when he got meet her one-on-one the other day.

Chuck Schumer is a funny guy.

You see what makes Chuck so comical is that, amongst other things, here's what the Senator WON'T talk about: when it comes to George W. Bush making Supreme Court picks, the Senator's mind has long been made up. And it's a resounding "NO!". Chuck Schumer (who despite going on record expressing great admiration for John Roberts' judicial skills, yet still turned down his nomination) wouldn't vote "yes" to a Supreme Court nominee unless they absolutely hated the idea of prayer in schools, literally had an abortion and would go on record as having attended a gay wedding. Therein lies the Senator's litmus test. And last time I checked, that's illegal.

At least Specter has the excuse of being old, tired and literally sick. But who needs him anyway? Miers doesn't.

If Conservative Republicans would put their selfish pride aside and I don't know . . . TRUST the guy in charge, they'd see that a Miers confirmation is a step forward for the conservative movement. Conservatives wanted an obvious judicial conservative for their nominee. They didn't want to be asked, as they were with Judge Roberts, to support a nominee based on faith. They wanted another Robert Bork, a judge whose paper trail clearly identified him as a constitutionalist, yet he got rejected anyway.

We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.

So President Bush gave them Harriet Miers. She has never been a judge. Her paper trail is even thinner than Roberts'. Her judicial tendencies can be inferred, but they can't be proved. But what does that matter? Miers, has MORE experience at law than Clarence Thomas did before he got elected, so all the talk of "lack of experience" is really insignificant chatter covering for petty jealousy. Also, she has clearly shown where she stands on issues at the heart of conservatives. Sure, she hasn't said much so far in public, but legal speak says that she doesn't have to.

Like Roberts before her, Miers just needs to excel at the game of "getting in", and what that essentially means is that she has to learn the art of not saying much, without saying nothing. Convince at least 45 Republicans and 10 Democrats that she knows what she's talking about, get in tune with past major cases that shaped U.S. law, know the ins and outs of the Constitution and she's our next Associate Justice.

Then, she can make life easy for herself by just being like Thomas. Do like Thomas does in public: smile and say nothing. And, like Thomas does with Antonin Scalia, she can just lean over and copy another justices' notes. And, just like Thomas, in 10 years Conservatives will have the same adoration for Harriet as they do now for Thomas. And they'll throw her plenty of accolades. And call her "brilliant". Just like Thomas.

Can it be that it's all so simple?

For Miers sake and the President's, it'd better be.