From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Wed Oct 02 2002 - 07:34:31 MDT
In a message dated 10/2/2002 1:26:34 AM Central Standard Time,
fauxever@sprynet.com writes: I don't put much stock in descriptions like
"absolute gentleman" (I'm not even certain what that means).
Olga,
"Absolute Gentleman" refers to Clarence Thomas' ability to not only be
polite and have the polished manners of a gentleman but that he could also
exhibit strength, intelligence, and all the virtues that a human should
possess through good times and bad. In comparing him to Ted Bundy you only
proved you truly do not know what the phrase means. That is too bad, I only
wish there had been more absolute gentlemen in your life that you might have
learned to recognize them.
"Can we at least agree that he's no Thurgood Marshall?" As far as I
ever heard publicly Thurgood Marshall stayed strictly within the confines of
the civil rights movement in conduct and advocacy. Had Clarence Thomas done
so also he would probably had a distinguished career according to the views
of that segment of the political spectrum. Instead Justice Thomas found his
own path. He owes no one, But more importantly no one can demand that he
stick to the party line. And, for that he is hated.
You said, "You really don't think Thomas feels beholden to the
Republicans? Observe: "The question never has been who Thomas is, but what
he has done and how he got into a position to do it."
No, I don't think he feels beholden to the Republicans and more that
Thurgood Marshall did to the Dems -- even less perhaps, how am I to search
the soul of Thurgood Marshall?
But the real problem here is that "The question never has been who
Thomas is, but what he has done and how he got into a position to do it." has
never been the question. Had there been an honest inquiry into his view of
the law that would have been great. I think he would have passed the test
but as it never happened there is no way to be sure. I think his detractors
missed a great chance to show they were people of stature but instead they
set out Bork Justice Thomas. I sat there day after day watching his
detractors slip out of the room when they were not questioning, when they
returned and began questioning their questions betrayed their ignorance of
what had just been going on in the committee room. In fact they sounded like
they were all sticking strictly to the same sheet of talking points without
responding to the testimony of anyone. That is too bad but I retain a sense
of a great opportunity having been missed.
You said, "But I would have thought a lot more of him had he not been
so loutish as to deny others the benefits of affirmative action, even while
being a benefactor of affirmative action himself"
I think Justice Thomas is a man that would have made it in almost any
context. Other than the moral fiber to be a "complete gentleman," his
appearance suggests superior physical strength but above all he has an
overwhelming intelligence. Part of his success in that committee room was
that his intellectual & moral stature reduced his detractors to appearing as
pygmies.
There is an attitude among lawyers that I have heard lawyers express
more than once. They say that when an opposing witness really seems to know
what they are saying the proper response is to get them off the stand as soon
as possible. That opposing witness, if you continue to question them, will
continue to hurt you more and more the longer they are on the stand. I think
that is the mistake his detractors made about Justice Thomas. If I were out
to detract from him I would immediately shut up and get him out of the public
eye insofar as I could. The more he is on the public stage the more he is
going to impress people.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:23 MST