posted on December 16, 2000 09:10:49 AM newkrs
What happened in FLA with the black vote was horrendous and turned back the clocks 40+ years! It disgusted me when I read about it and it disgusted me more that Ms.Harris sure did not do a damn thing about it - I don't even think she mentioned it. From what I read, the numbers were large that were not permitted to vote. It makes me wonder if the whole state of Fla. should have been voided.
posted on December 16, 2000 09:39:36 AM new
What a disgusting article. Apparently, Mr. Thomas is not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice...he's a black Supreme Court Justice. Bah. Why don't they just call him an Uncle Tom and be done with it? Racist tripe.
posted on December 16, 2000 10:29:43 AM new
Zazzie,there is a very remote possibility that the electors (where legal in their state) can change their vote, but unlikely. Most electors are far too loyal to their respective parties. Its been done, I believe, but they were 'write in' votes for a candidate that wasn't running, or some dumb thing like that.
posted on December 16, 2000 10:53:35 AM new
Not a bad idea Nobs to have voided the whole state. In a local press conference Jeb and Katherine,did say they were going to look into the disenfranchised black voters.
I thought,of course your are ,now that you are worried about your own future Jeb.
I suppose the nominating of Colin Powell today is suppose to make up for it all. Justice Thomas thinks like a Conservative white. He is not one of the brothers
posted on December 16, 2000 11:00:41 AM new
Zazzie
States with laws binding electors: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Keep in mind that just because a state has a law requiring an elector to vote a certain way does not mean the elector must do so. People break the law all the time, and a would-be faithless elector could change his vote and then just face the consequences. However, no faithless elector has ever been punished for his vote. In North Carolina, South Carolina, and Michigan, faithless electors are replaced before their vote can be sent to Congress.
posted on December 16, 2000 11:19:12 AM new
Justice Thomas is notorious for being a man of few words during Court hearings. He rarely contributes verbally or asks questions of the petitoners. His explanation for this is that he grew up speaking a mixture of "gullah" (is that creole?) and English, and says as a result he always felt uncomfortable in primary school, not feeling fluent enough using proper English. As a result, he says he learned more by simply listening, and this has become a life-long habit for him. Paraphrasing him, he said that he learned that if he listened long enough (and I believe he is referring to Court hearings here) that sooner or later "someone" (one of the other justices?) will ask the "right" question that is already on his mind. Hmmmm...or maybe he's just waiting for the "right" question to validate the "right" answer he has already come up with. Anyway, that's his answer for why he doesn't speak much in Court.
posted on December 16, 2000 11:26:12 AM new
toke - First and foremost keep in mind that the original writer of the article in question is an African American.
Second and equally important; That is the sentiment of 9 of 10 African-Americans about Justice Thomas. That includes members of the African-American Bar.
Now for the networker67 take on the matter. Justice Thomas is a man who is confused on a great deal of things. Whom also seems to have this mental block that he doesn't want to believe that he got where he is via Affirmative Action. I had the priveledge of speaking with him once and promised myself never again. As an intelligent African-American, I don't expect him to follow in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall. And I don't expect him to rule or vote on the high court outside of what he believes to be good jurisprudence. But I don't expect him to sit there and do or say nothing.
We just had a case before the high court which although not really played into by the media that heavily, involved serious issues involving African Americans. I personally think the Gore legal team shouldhave giventhose ballots faces. But I can respect and see the reason why they didn't. But whether they gave the ballots faces or not. let's just say that 9 out of 10 of those faces were Black. So how is it that he doesn't have any questions? How can the swing vote on an issue involving African Americans be Sandra Day O'Connor.
He is an insult to the thousands of African-Americans that practice law and sit on the bench in this great country of ours. He insults them by not having or expressing a legal opinion on anything. The Florida Supreme Court has two African Americans sitting on it, even they split on the Florida Supreme vote. But both challeneged the lawyers of both the Gore and Bush teams. Both asked questions and both actively participated in the proceedings. If Justice Thomas would have asked a few questions that at least hinted how he felt on the recent issue his vote would at least have a perspective to it. Knowing how he saw the issue would have at least given his supporters (what few there are) some where to defend his vote.
Some people say it is best to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I say silence is ignorance unless you can't speak. Because if you are wrong by expressing it someone somewhere can help you see your error.
posted on December 16, 2000 11:36:07 AM new
Toke,
I don't think that responsibility in posting extends to the concern over the 'take' that others may have or not have, and I'm not into handholding anyway.
As to Clarence Thomas's reticence: I watched his confirmation hearings and he certainly was lucid enough then before the U.S. Senate. Also, this article mentions video tapes of in chamber discussion amongst the justices of the court in which he is shown to be anything but shy of speaking.
posted on December 16, 2000 11:41:05 AM new
krs...
"Toke,
I don't think that responsibility in posting extends to the concern over the 'take' that
others may have or not have, and I'm not into handholding anyway."
posted on December 16, 2000 11:52:24 AM new
Clarence Thomas was picked for the Supreme Court because he WAS BLACK---and conservative. A Republican's dream---they were able to cater to the race issue but not mess with any of their conservative ideals
posted on December 16, 2000 11:55:57 AM new
Moving on,
To expect that a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court base his opinions on his racial background is totally unacceptable and racist on its face.
The race of the people with those expectations is irrelevant.
In a perfect world, one in which "All men are created equal", no one could disagree with you, Toke.
But that is not the world we live in, particularly not in this country, now, nor has it ever been.
If the judicial system in this country were blind, i.e. without pariality in all considerations, why would there be any concern during the election of a president over what supreme court appointments might be made by the elected?
It's representation in the court that is of concern, and for a block of citizens of whatever origin to feel that a justice on that court of that same origin might represent the interests that they hold important is not unwarranted, any more than that same feeling on the part of people of a particular political persuasion is unwarranted.
posted on December 16, 2000 12:05:09 PM new
krs...
"It's representation in the court that is of concern, and for a block of citizens of whatever
origin to feel that a justice on that court of that same origin might represent the interests
that they hold important is not unwarranted, any more than that same feeling on the part
of people of a particular political persuasion is unwarranted."
It is unwarranted...because that's not his job. His job is to interpret the law according to the Constitution. His only constituency is the people of the United States...not any particular or special group of those people.
posted on December 16, 2000 12:09:24 PM new
Regarding civil rights issues, intelligent people of all races having the ability to properly discern, agree that all people have a natural right to have personal prejudicial opinions, beliefs, and feelings regarding ethnicity, culture, religion, ect.,
Regarding race, a common standard used by these intelligent people to determine the difference between being (just) prejudiced or being a racist is "action."
If a person knowingly and intentionally engages in actions, solicits action, or instigates actions, that are oppressive, exclusionary, destructive, or injurious, such actions and persons are usually defined as, "racist."
Such fine tuning of the definition of prejudice and racist is necessary as to acknowledge and protect a person's right of freedom of speech and the right to have personal opinions, personal feelings, and personal beliefs, but do not actively encroach upon the rights of others.
PS:
Why must Justice Thomas be a "black" Justice, why can't he just be Justice Thomas? Why are the other Justices not referred to as the "white" Justices?
posted on December 16, 2000 12:09:33 PM new
Of course, Toke, It's ALL of their jobs. But isn't it interesting that all of the republicans vote one way, and all of the democrats the other?
Maybe Georgie can make the pie bigger so that others can have a piece too.
posted on December 16, 2000 12:26:36 PM new
No, the republican/democratic voting characteristics do not of themselves pertain to the 'race thing'. But insofar as they indicate a separation from pure judicial reasoning they do, since that set of characteristics implies that there is an exclusion in the presented reasoning of those interests not represented specifically by those two groupings.
If the court is segregated into political avenues, where is green street? Where is independent's drive?
posted on December 16, 2000 12:31:45 PM new
toke - I think we have a reading comprehension problem here. But it might be slight case of skip reading on your part. Nowhere do I say his vote should have been based on race. I say he should open his mouth to lend some legal foundation/arguement to his votes.
[quote] As an intelligent African-American, I don't expect him to follow in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall. And I don't expect him to rule or vote on the high court outside of what he believes to be good jurisprudence. But I don't expect him to sit there and do or say nothing. [/quote]
here's another quote from my last post
[quote]He is an insult to the thousands of African-Americans that practice law and sit on the bench in this great country of ours. He insults them by not having or expressing a legal opinion on anything. The Florida Supreme Court has two African Americans sitting on it, even they split on the Florida Supreme vote. But both challeneged the lawyers of both the Gore and Bush teams. Both asked questions and both actively participated in the proceedings. If Justice Thomas would have asked a few questions that at least hinted how he felt on the recent issue his vote would at least have a perspective to it. Knowing how he saw the issue would have at least given his supporters (what few there are) some where to defend his vote.
Now tell me where did you gather the impression that I suggested he should vote based on race. I'll chalk it up to your skip reading the post. Now if you want to get legal about this, The United States Supreme Court, ruled in a manner which would have forced the Florida Supreme to do one of two things.
1. Rule the revised in 1999 election laws unconstitutional. This would have reverted Florida to the pre-1999 laws which there wouldn't have been enough time to recount under.
2. Write a set of standards to count the undervote. Since the court can only interpret the law they can't write a standard only the legislature can do that
In short the United States Supreme Court, asked the Florida Court to either write a
set of standards to count the votes. Which they knew is beyond their power or strike the clear intent language by ruling it unconstitutional under Article II, Equal Protection, and 15th Amendment. Which there wouldn't have been enough time either way.
Now if the Florida Supreme vote had of been 5 to 2, you can bet that they would have called the US Supreme bluff and struck the law. But being split themselves at 4 to 3. Their hands were effectively tied. Because keep in mind the Florida Republican Legislature was already in special session so the Republicans would have just thrown something together to eliminate the manual recounts altogether.
In short the clock ran out. Now the Republicans in both Washington and Florida have to brace themselves for when those votes get counted by Academia. You can bet that they will use their influence in Government and Corporate America to cut off the funding of anyone trying to count the votes that won't place a Republican twist on the recount. But got some sad news for them, a count of those votes will take place and we don't need their money or their grants to fund it.
I said earlier in other threads the Republican Party has risked an awful lot to regain the White House. So I have to wonder why they need it so badly right now.