Yes, Uncle Ruckus Thomas Still Hates Your Black Ass

“Paula Deen doesn’t like Blacks? Me neither!”

In my previous post I predicted two of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions would result as follows:  “affirmative action is further weakened and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gutted.”

Turns out I was only half right.   Affirmative action lives, but only for now and the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section Five, was curb-stomped by four White conservative judges and a house slave happier than Stephen in Django Unchained.

The Supreme Court punted the affirmative action case back down to the lower court, but made it clear the policy of considering race in college admissions is hanging by the thinnest of threads.    While Justice Anthony Kennedy is no fan of affirmative action, he’s not ready to provide the scissors that cuts it into shreds.

Clarence The Cruel Thomas has no such reluctance.   He’s ready to hack affirmative action into bloody chunks with a machete.    While the decision to return Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin  to the lower appeals court was 7-1 (with Justice Elena Kagan abstaining and Ruth Bader Ginsburg objecting), Thomas concurred with the majority, but wrote a separate 20 page opinion comparing affirmative action to slavery.

“Slaveholders argued that slavery was a ‘positive good’ that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life,” Thomas wrote in a separate opinion on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. “A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students.”

“Following in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign.  The University’s professed good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists.”

“Although cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping. 

   “The worst forms of racial discrimination in this nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.”

The ULTIMATE affirmative action hire talks smack about the policy that put his incompetent ass on the Court. Pot calling kettle…

What’s the main argument against affirmative action? That it gives unqualified and unprepared Blacks an unfair advantage into jobs they would never qualify for based upon their individual merits?

Uncle Ruckus Thomas, shuffle on over!

“We wuz both cursed by this damn Black skin!”

With the case of Clarence Thomas being a notable exception. When Bush 41 put his name into nomination he said, “He was the most qualified man I could find” which was a total lie. Thomas wasn’t even the most qualified Black judge Bush could have selected. Thomas had kissed the right rings and they knew he was NEVER going to change or become an independent judge the way David Souter did.

Thomas is an AA baby right down to his toes and he got a lifetime appointment to a job he wasn’t remotely qualified for.  He knows it and bitterly resents it.   But Thomas has spent 22 years making sure  the rest of Black America suffers for his humiliation.

“I was disappointed because what I think what the court did today is stab the Voting Rights Act of 1965 right in its very heart,” Congressman John Lewis explained to MSNBC. “It is a major setback. We may not have people being beaten today, maybe they’re not being denied the right to participate, to register to vote, they’re not being chased by police dogs or trampled by horses. But in the 11 states of the old Confederacy and even in some of the states outside of the South, there has been a systematic, deliberate attempt to take us back to another period.”

“And these men that voted to strip the Voting Rights Act of its power, they never stood in unmovable lines, they never had to pass a so-called literacy test. It took us almost a hundred years to get where we are today. So, will it take another hundred years to fix it, to change it?”

There are only eight years difference in age between Representative Lewis and Judge Thomas.  There is a yawning chasm between how the two men perceive where Black Americans were regarding racism and where they are.

Say bye-bye to early voting, same-day registration, and weekend voting and say hello to more voter I.D. requirements, more polling places closed in Black and Latino neighborhoods, long waits in long lines and every other restriction Republican-run statehouses can dream up.   It will start down South (and already has in Texas, North Carolina, Georgia and other states covered by Section 5), but will it be too long before it winds it way up to Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio as well?

I  hope all my good liberal/progressive friends who have been LOSING THEIR SHIT for the past few weeks over the NSA domestic surveillance and the theoretical threats to liberty and democracy are equally fired up over what a conservative cabal has done to turn not the clock, but the calendar back.  This is 2013, but the Court may just have decided the 2016 presidential election.  Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic contender will rue the day a right-wing majority of the Court decided they were tired of racism and declared it a thing of the past.   At least racism directed toward non-Whites.

My father was what Thomas thinks he is: a strong and proud Black man.   He despised Thomas for his slave mentality.   He wanted to take Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and all those other despicable right-wingers and beat all their asses with a baseball bat.

The house slave who Bush 41 selected to occupy the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall, the iconic champion of Black progress and civil rights,  continued to mock his predecessor’s legacy in joining his conservative brethren on the Court to gut Section Five and throw his own people to the tender mercies of racist Southern politicians.

I knew this ruling by the Supreme Court was coming.   I fully expected how the vote would go.   But I still want to beat Clarence Thomas’ punk ass with a baseball bat.

Black robes, white hoods.

Black robes, white hoods.

“No More” Say Critics of Obama’s Morehouse Speech

"Okay, enough encouragement.  Here comes the scolding."

“Okay, enough encouragement. Here comes the scolding.”

The president is invited to give the commencement speech to colleges all across the country.   As far as speakers go, President Obama and  First Lady Michelle Obama are considered major “gets.”

However, his speech last week at Morehouse College got on the nerves of some of his critics.

    “We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices. Growing up, I made a few myself. And I have to confess, sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. But one of the things you’ve learned over the last four years is that there’s no longer any room for excuses. I understand that there’s a common fraternity creed here at Morehouse: ‘excuses are tools of the incompetent, used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness.’ We’ve got no time for excuses – not because the bitter legacies of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they haven’t.

Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; that’s still out there. It’s just that in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with a billion young people from China and India and Brazil entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything you haven’t earned. And whatever hardships you may experience because of your race, they pale in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured – and overcame.

    “You now hail from a lineage and legacy of immeasurably strong men – men who bore tremendous burdens and still laid the stones for the path on which we now walk. You wear the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, Ralph Bunche and Langston Hughes, George Washington Carver and Ralph Abernathy, Thurgood Marshall and yes, Dr. King. These men were many things to many people. They knew full well the role that racism played in their lives. But when it came to their own accomplishments and sense of purpose, they had no time for excuses.”

    “I was raised by a heroic single mother and wonderful grandparents who made incredible sacrifices for me. And I know there are moms and grandparents here today who did the same thing for all of you. But I still wish I had a father who was not only present, but involved. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father wasn’t for my mother and me. I’ve tried to be a better husband, a better father, and a better man.


“I’m going to scold the Black president for scolding Black people.”

    “It’s hard work that demands your constant attention, and frequent sacrifice. And Michelle will be the first to tell you that I’m not perfect. Even now, I’m still learning how to be the best husband and father I can be. Because success in everything else is unfulfilling if we fail at family. I know that when I’m on my deathbed someday, I won’t be thinking about any particular legislation I passed, or policy I promoted; I won’t be thinking about the speech I gave, or the Nobel Prize I received. I’ll be thinking about a walk I took with my daughters. A lazy afternoon with my wife. Whether I did right by all of them.

    “Be a good role model and set a good example for that young brother coming up. If you know someone who isn’t on point, go back and bring that brother along. The brothers who have been left behind – who haven’t had the same opportunities we have – they need to hear from us. We’ve got to be in the barbershops with them, at church with them, spending time and energy and presence helping pull them up, exposing them to new opportunities, and supporting their dreams. We have to teach them what it means to be a man – to serve your city like Maynard Jackson; to shape the culture like Spike Lee. Chester Davenport was one of the first people to integrate the University of Georgia law school. When he got there, no one would sit next to him in class. But Chester didn’t mind. Later on, he said, ‘It was the thing for me to do. Someone needed to be the first.’ Today, Chester is here celebrating his 50th reunion. If you’ve had role models, fathers, brothers like that – thank them today. If you haven’t, commit yourself to being that man for someone else.”

This was a pretty standard Obama riff: be responsible. Be a man.  Take care of your responsibilities.  Don’t blame others for your lot in life.  We’ve heard variations of this uplift-the-race speech from Obama since 2008.   This is not new.

What is news is how some Black commentators have had enough and don’t want to hear it anymore.  They want President Obama to talk to them the way he talks to predominantly White audiences.

Ta-Neshi Coates:  Taking the full measure of the Obama presidency thus far, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this White House has one way of addressing the social ills that afflict black people — and particularly black youth — and another way of addressing everyone else. I would have a hard time imagining the president telling the women of Barnard that “there’s no longer room for any excuses” — as though they were in the business of making them. Barack Obama is, indeed, the president of “all America,” but he also is singularly the scold of “black America.”

Courtland Milloy There is something vaguely contemptuous about the president’s style of criticism when addressing black audiences. Invariably, his rosy rhetoric comes with insensitive scolding — his mesmerizing visage leaving them oblivious to the blood he has drawn.

“Heh-heh. I have destroyed their youthful spirit.”

“The blood he has drawn?”  Come on, Courtland.  You can make your point without resorting to heavy-handed and silly exaggerations.   Coates has also written much better columns than this and he, as well as nearly every Black columnist I’ve ever read have all scolded Black Americans over one thing or another.    Sitting back and pointing out where others have come up short is practically what the job description for a columnist.

What the President said was not drastically different from what others from Bill Cosby to Minister Farrakhan have previously said. I, like many others here have “called out” my own people for our failings. Leadership is not always telling us what we want to hear, but what we need to hear. Why should this be more of an irritant coming from Obama than anyone else?

And to my Super Soul Sister Tonyaa Weathersbee , who took the president to task on Facebook, I must take issue with your observation that “Obama’s speech on black male responsibility is wasted on an audience of Morehouse graduates who get it. They’ve already been responsible enough to pursue a degree, so why drive home what they already know?”

How do we KNOW the president is telling these grads “what they already know?” Who’s to say the social conscience of a Morehouse man is more highly attuned than the working class brutha holdin’ down a 9 to 5? You don’t have to accept W.E.B. DuBois “Talented Tenth” concept to know more than a few Blacks who graduate from institutions of higher learning, have no intentions of doing anything to uplift the race and are going to run as far and as fast from those who haven’t been as blessed as they are. Their top priority is finding a high-paying gig with a Fortune 500 company because baby needs a new pair of shoes and to pay off those student loans too!

If Obama’s tone to the grads at Morehouse is different from that of The Ohio State University, perhaps he realizes the odds differ for their success and the stakes are higher.  A graduate of OSU that blows it once they live school may have alternative paths to success.   A Morehouse man may only get one shot to make it and if they fall short, that failure reflects on not just them and their family, but the collective hopes of the Black community.

If the educates classes of Blacks don’t want to hear any more “tut-tut-tutting” from the President and the working class masses aren’t paying attention, who’s left?

Instead of saying, “I’m tired of hearing Obama telling me what I already know” a better way of looking at it is, “Is he saying anything that isn’t still a problem?” Maybe we should pull ourselves away from Kerry Washington’s imaginary love affair with the fictional White Republican Chief Executive long enough to look at the unresolved real world issues the Black Democratic one is bringing to our seemingly unwanted attention.

Those bitching about the president’s speech are probably the same ones who bitch about how Obama ignores the concerns of Blacks.   Now when he mentions them  and suggests its up to Black grads to address some of the outstanding issues that have plagued the race for decades,  if not centuries, he’s lecturing Black audiences in a way he doesn’t do White audiences.   Well, duh.   Black folks don’t have the same problems as White, gay, Latino and female audiences do.

Don’t kill the messenger because you don’t dig the message.   If we truly want Obama to be the Black president, don’t complain when he speaks to problems peculiar to Black people.    It’s unfortunate Obama’s speech fell on so many deaf ears among the Black illuminati.  Instead of telling the president he has no business talking about the problems Black folks have, they should be writing columns proposing solutions to them.

Next year when Obama doesn’t speak at any Black colleges and says, “Who needs that drama,”  he’ll catch hell for only speaking to White graduates.   You can see this train coming long before it gets here.

I went to college for four years and all I got was rained on and a lecture from the President.

Should She Stay or Should She Go?

Liberals welcomed Ginsburg’s arrival on the Court but some worry she’s stayed too long.

The legal legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg may hinge on two  “20/20” questions only she knows the answer to.   Should she step down from the Supreme Court seat she’s held for 20 years while there’s a Democrat in the White House until 2016 and a Democratically controlled Senate for at least another 20 months?

If Ginsburg cares at all about her legacy, she should step down while there’s still an opportunity to be replaced by a like-minded justice. If she hangs on beyond 2013 the odds keep going up a Republican controlled Senate will turn back any successor they consider too far to the Left.

I’m not the only progressive checking out the calendar and worrying Ginsburg may hang around past President Obama’s term.  In an essay for Salon Jonathan Bernstein laid out the looming dilemma.

Retiring and giving up her final years on the nation’s high court is a lot to ask from Ginsburg, who has been a liberal hero for many years. But just as she was a liberal hero before serving on the Supreme Court, she can be a liberal hero again by leaving it.

This is all pretty straightforward. Ginsburg is 80. Her health is apparently fine now, although she’s a two-time cancer survivor. There’s every possibility she could not only continue in office beyond the Barack Obama presidency but that she could survive even eight years of a Republican in office after that, if that’s what’s in the cards.

And yet: “Every possibility” isn’t good enough. Ginsburg will turn 84 soon after Obama’s successor will be sworn in. Realistically, anyone planning for the future has to assume there’s a 50 percent chance of that successor being a Republican.

Moreover, the simple fact is that most Republicans will support a filibuster against any Supreme Court nominee. Right now, the 55 Democrats (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats) may be enough, combined with a handful of Republicans who are moderate enough or simply oppose knee-jerk filibusters, to get a nominee confirmed.

It’s only going to get harder, however. Next year is an election year, and Republicans fearing a Tea Party challenge will be even more reluctant to let the Kenyan socialist in the White House have a third Supreme Court nominee confirmed. And after that, the odds are pretty good that Democrats will lose ground in the 2014 elections and that they could even lose their majority in the Senate altogether.

And then every month that goes by brings us that much closer to January 2017 and makes it that much easier for Republicans to just implement a confirm-nobody strategy to run out the clock.

Polski: Thurgood Marshall

Marshall was replaced by Clarence Thomas, his polar opposite.

Why should she stay? She’s been there 20 years already. Or do you want her to repeat Thurgood Marshall‘s mistake by hanging on too long and letting a Republican president appoint her replacement?

I’ve never understood why these Justices hang on to the bitter end. They live in Washington and they’re political animals: Ginsburg knows she’s more likely to be replaced by someone closer to her ideologically if Obama has Patrick Leahy running the Judiciary Committee instead of Charles Grassley.

An appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime gig, but why wait until you’re almost dead to step aside gracefully.   It’s not as if Ginsburg will out-wait Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas to see who steps down first.  Those two bastards would sooner eat their feet than allow Obama to pick their replacements.  Unless they drop dead during oral arguments (and as Thomas rarely speaks or asks any questions, who’s gonna notice if he does?), it’s Ginsburg at the top of the chart of associate justices most likely to call it quits.

It sounds cold to suggest Ginsburg exchange her robes for  slippers and morning television, but if she’s replaced by another Thomas as Marshall was she might have wished she retired a year earlier than later.

I’m a political animal too. Holding on to the bitter end is not a good way for a Supreme Court Justice to go out.   Ginsburg is serving a lifetime appointment and as long as her health holds up and her mental facilities are sharp (as lawyers who  are subject to her questioning during oral argument before the Court can attest to) she shouldn’t be badgered into leaving before she’s ready to go.   The way most of the Justices ignore the media and decline to do interviews it is unlikely Ginsburg pays much attention to the angst of progressives.

Ginsburg and her colleagues on the Court serve lifetime appointments to insulate them from political pressure.  That doesn’t mean when they choose or don’t choose to step aside doesn’t have major political impact.

Whether Ginsburg decides to stay or go, this woman who is small in stature will have a huge impact on the future direction of justice in America.

Ginsburg is a little lady who has a big impact.

The Damage One Ignorant Negro Can Do: A Hate Story in Three Parts

“No suh. I don’t know who stole the last big piece of chicken.”

All I cared about was finding answers, no matter who had them. When, later on, I began to associate with conservatives, it was because their ideas were closer to mine than liberals’ ideas, not because I saw myself as one of them. I’d already noticed that it was liberals, not conservatives, who were most likely to condescend to blacks, but I assumed, like the good radical I once was, that liberals and conservatives were simply two different breeds of snake, one stealthy, the other openly hostile.

~ Clarence ThomasMy Grandfather’s Son (pages 107-108)

My dad told me there’s no difference between a black snake and a white snake. They both bite.

~ Thurgood Marshall at a press conference announcing his retirement from the Supreme Court.

It’s said that hate is a wasteful emotion.  It’s said that hating someone is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die.  It’s said that hating someone means renting space in your head and they probably don’t even know how much you hate them.

I accept all that to be true.  But I still hate Clarence Thomas.   I’ve done a good job of getting away from the days when I was quick to call someone an Uncle Tom.   Thomas has been a massive failure as a judge on the Supreme Court, but beyond that he’s not just bad; he’s evil.

My good friend, Denise Clay, the Mad Political Scientist and I had a Facebook debate where she asked me wasn’t I being a bit rough when I described Uncle Clarence Thomas as a “lawn jockey?”

My response is I’m just upset  EMERGE magazine beat me to it. I’d be a lot less hard on Uncle Thomas if he were a lot less hard on Black folks.

Two wrongs never make a right, Jeff…

Denise, EMERGE wasn’t wrong. Thomas has been a complete disaster. He’s the ultimate argument against affirmative action. An unqualified, unprepared bumbler who got his job only because Bush needed a Black conservative to replace Thurgood Marshall and Uncle Thomas was ready and on the case.

Calling people things like Uncle Toms, Lawn Jockeys and the like are dialogue stoppers.

Dialogue stoppers? I don’t WANT to dialogue with Uncle Thomas and his worthless ass. FUCK Clarence Thomas. I’d rather have a hardcore White conservative that hates Black folks like Scalia than a punk-ass sell-out like Thomas.

But you don’t neutralize him this way. You make him a martyr…which makes him stronger…

Fine. Let hit be a martyr. I don’t give a shit as long as he’s no longer on the Supreme Court making life hell for 36 million Black Americans, give or take a few conservatives.

I’m tired of hearing about how we need to reach out to Black folks who think and act like Uncle Thomas. Why isn’t HE reaching out to US? You never see Thomas go to a HBCU, an NAACP convention, or on Black oriented radio, television, newspaper or website trying to reach out to Black people. And you know what? YOU NEVER WILL.

“Every day we shufflin'”

Uncle Thomas doesn’t care what Denise Clay thinks. He damn sure doesn’t care what Jeff Winbush thinks. White people–specifically White conservatives–are the ONLY people he cares about. He cares very much about what they think. Why else would he throw his own sister under the bus for the entertainment of White conservatives? Thomas is whom we thought he was. A sell-out. A house Negro. A lawn jockey for the White Right.

And Ms Clay says calling him so shut down the possibility of dialogue. During WWII, did the French sit down to discuss their differences with Nazi collaborators? Clarence sleeps with the enemy. Literally, not figuratively.

Instead of playing Henry Kissinger with the low-life likes of Uncle Clarence, I opt for going Sgt. Vernon Walters from ‘A Soldier’s Story‘ on his ass:

“Them Nazis ain’t all crazy. Whole lot of people just can’t seem to fit in to where things seem to be going. Like you, CJ. See, the Black race can’t afford you no more. There used to be a time, we’d see someone like you singin’, clownin’, yassuh-bossin’… and we wouldn’t do anything. Folks liked that. You were good. Homey kind of nigger. When they needed somebody to mistreat, call a name or two, they paraded you. Reminded them of the good old days. Not no more. The day of the Geechee is gone, boy. And you’re going with it.”

Black people can’t afford self-hating, race traitors like Uncle Clarence Thomas no more. As someone who used to admire Malcolm X before he went mad and peddled his ass and soul, Uncle Thomas should understand how Malcolm warned us of Uncle Toms.

And calling him an Uncle Tom is a much better solution…

When he walks like an Uncle Tom, talks like an Uncle Tom, and acts like an Uncle Tom, it would highly inaccurate not to call Uncle Thomas an Uncle Tom.

Would you prefer I call him a duck?

Your desire to sit down and attempt to reason with an unreasonable man is charming and sweet and hopelessly doomed to failure. The problem is you think Uncle Thomas has a problem you can help him fix. He doesn’t think he has a problem. He thinks YOU do.

On the Supreme Court Marshall defended Blacks. Thomas dogs out Blacks.

I just have a problem with the name calling. All it does is strengthen his position with the forces that want to do us in. Do I like this guy? No. He’s a bit of an ass. But Uncle Tom has a definite implication and I don’t think that I have the right to judge who is Black and who is not.

(I remember “A Soldier’s Story” too..)

Well, Niecey, I’ll put it like this. Many Black folks take offense to hearing the word “nigger” casually applied, but as Chris Rock put it, we know there’s a vast difference between how Black people and niggers behave, do we not?

It is undeniable there are Black people whose only purpose in life is to do dirt to other Blacks. Whether they were House Negroes giving aid and comfort to the White slave owners or the sell-outs that betrayed other Field Negroes who tried to rebel and escape their oppression, there have ALWAYS been Blacks happy to sell-out other Blacks just so long as they get over.

If you want me to lay out a case against Uncle Clarence Thomas and why I consider him a race traitor, sell-out, Uncle Tom House Negro who hates Blacks and loves Whites, I got no problem doing so.

Not that I’m trying to change your mind, but to make you understand I didn’t just wake up hating Clarence Thomas and everything he stands for. I’ve been hip to this head scratchin”, eye-rolling, chicken-n’-biscuit eatin’ Negro for some time,  long before George Bush desecrated the Supreme Court and mocked Thurgood Marshall by  replacing him with the Uncle Thomas shufflin’ minstrel show.

But talk is cheap.  I have my reasons to hate Uncle Thomas.  Very definite reasons and in my next post I’m going to focus on another member of the Supreme Court who is a worthy challenger to Thomas for the title of The Worst Justice Ever and may–operative word “may”–have hated Blacks even more than Thomas.

The GOP’s strategy against Kagan? Trashing Thurgood.

Only the GOP can save us from this dangerous (and dead) judical activist.

When President Johnson nominated United States Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, he was confirmed by the Senate 69-11 with 20 Senators not voting. 32 Republicans voted for Marshall. Ten Democrats–all from Southern states including the recently deceased Robert Byrd and Watergate hero Sam Ervin–voted against joined by one Republican, Strom Thurmond.

Fast-forward 43 years and Marshall would not have a hope in hell of finding 32 votes from this crew of Republicans.

John F. Kennedy said, “forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.” Here are some of the names of the enemy: Jeff Sessions. Jon Kyl. Orrin Hatch. Charles Grassley. John Cornyn.  These are the men whom in their impotent rage and frustration are trying to slime a man dead since 1993 in the hopes if they can dirty up the legacy of Thurgood Marshall as a wild-eyed radical and “liberal actvist” they might be able to derail Elena Kagan’s nomination.

Kyl: “Justice Marshall is a historic figure in many respects And it is not surprising that as one of his clerks she held him in the highest regard. Justice Marshall’s judicial philosophy, however, is not what I would consider to be mainstream.

As he once explained, you do what you think is right and let the law catch up. He might be the epitome of a results-oriented judge. And, again, Ms. Kagan appears to enthusiastically embrace Justice Marshall’s judicial philosophy, calling it, among other things, ‘a thing of glory’.”

Grassley: “Your Marshall memos indicate a liberal and seemingly outcome-based approach to your legal analysis.”

Cornyn: “[I]t is more about his judicial philosophy what concerns me and this has already been mentioned it is clear he considered himself a judicial activist and was unapologetic about it .”

Hatch: “There’s no doubt that he was an activist judge. “Let’s admire the man for the great things he did, but let’s not walk over and wipe out the things that really didn’t make sense as an obedient student of the practice of law.”

During the first day of Kagan’s confirmation hearings, Republicans mentioned Marshall’s name 35 times as opposed to 14 times of President Obama. Has anyone informed them Marshall was confirmed 43 years ago? Oh, and he’s been dead for 17 years too. I know conservatives hate science, but do they have a hard on against calendars too?

This is a particularly scummy approach even for Republicans used to low blow, gutter politics. If Kyl, Sessions and the rest of the right-wing cabal on the Judiciary Committee don’t know they are walking on a racial land mine by sliming Marshall it can only be they don’t care if they are.

Sitting two rows behind Kagan was the great man’s son, Thurgood “Goody” Marshall Jr. He had come to support his father’s former law clerk but found himself listening to his father being savaged as an unprofessional and unprincipled jurist.

Not one of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee cited a single case where Justice Marshall’s supposed legislating from the bench, but that wasn’t the point.   Not even these group of pinheads would be stupid to go all-out in trashing Thurgood.   The point was to use a dead man to make a live woman look bad.

While trashing Marshall’s judicial legacy is a disrespectful and dumb, it won’t hurt the GOP’s standing with African-Americans any (which is close to non-existent) and helps them not look totally impotent limp dicks to their base.

Shameless political theatre and posturing is an ugly thing. It gets only uglier when it’s being done by stiff old White guys who have done less on purpose for racial progress and equality than Marshall did accidentally.   Kagan is no Sonia Sotomayor with a natural constituency of support behind her, but the GOP knows they don’t have the votes to keep her off the Supreme Court.   This is just kabuki theater to warn President Obama that the next time around thing may be a bit different when there are fewer Democrats in the Senate than there are now.  Thurgood Marshall’s historical legacy can’t be tarnished by these whiny bitches.  The Republicans know they can do so with no price to pay.

Politics.  What a racket. : (

"Uh, you guys do know my name is 'Elena,' not 'Thurgood', right?"