Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Yeah, and I heard on NPR that Bush is busily beating the bushes for a
conservative-enough black to replace Marshall.

-d

    I think I'm going to go jump off a bridge now.
    
    D!

    D! I'll join you.
    
    L
    

    Nah, don't give 'em the satisfaction.
    
    At least we can make them go through the work of pushing us off.
    
    (,< :)
    

I want to throw up...

    sigh......
    
      -HA

    
    Keep in mind, Marshall has been bucked on every turn all year. He may
    be getting out because he can't do any more good just voicing a lone
    dissenting opinion...

    I asked my husband as soon as I read it here.
    
    He said that it was no surprise. Marshall has been in ill health
    for quite a while.
    
    This morning, the radio confirmed illness as  the cause.
    
    That makes it 3/4 aprox conservative, according to my SO.
    
    I understand the dread that is felt hat loosing him.
    However, I worry about the individuals who suspected political
    loss motivations over the health issues involved.  The man
    has taken the political limb enough times so that I would
    think him above petty speculations that he left because he
    felt he wasn't doing any more good.
    
    Give the man his due, and allow him to live the rest of his
    life with the full respect he deserves. It would be very good
    if the "political impotence" angle could be left out.
    
    Cindi

    Cindi, I did not make myself clear.
    
    Thurgood Marshall has been ill for a couple of years now. I really
    think he stuck it out because he wanted to be able to do some good,
    despite his illness. All I'm saying is perhaps he is going now, instead
    of 3 years ago when his health first began to fail, because staying now
    means less than staying 3 years ago did.
    
    But if you want to call my comment petty, that's your perogative.

    I know this isn't exactly relevant but ...
    
    Did you here the factoid about his getting to see his son sworn in to
    the Supreme Court Bar last week?  I'll bet it made him feel good, even
    if it doesn't help the country right away.
    
    Too bad it will take a while to turn the court again, perhaps 20-30 years.
    By then maybe there will be another Mr Justice Marshall appointed.
    
    ed

    If, as I have read, the supreme court is now weighted toward the 
    conservative, I wonder how long it had (this is at least implied) 
    a liberal slant?
    
    I haven't paid much attention, I must admit, but am wondering whether
    the court is more like a pendulum or a spiral (or helix).  If a pendulum, 
    it must swing back and forth at more or less regular intervals.  If a
    spiral, then, even though each decision is liberal or conservative, and
    the decisions of each year can be regarded as a tendency toward l or c, 
    nevertheless the body of all decisions can be observed to move.  Then
    come the questions.  Upward or downward?  Spiral or helix?
    
    aq
     

 
 
type: NYT (Copyright 1991 The New York Times)
priority: Regular
date: 06-27-91 1818EDT
category: Washington News
subject: BC MARSHALL COX
title: THURGOOD MARSHALL RETIRES FROM SUPREME COURT
author:  BOB DART and JULIA MALONE
text: 
 
    WASHINGTON -- Thurgood Marshall, an 82-year-old civil rights champion
    and the nation's first and only black justice, announced his retirement
    from the Supreme Court on Thursday -- opening the door for President
    Bush to pick a conservative replacement.
    
       In a two-paragraph letter to the White House, Marshall said he was
    stepping down because ``the strenuous demands of the court work and its
    related duties required or expected of a justice appear at this time to
    be incompatible with my advancing age and medical condition.''
   
    Appointed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, Marshall has been a
    consistent liberal voice on the Supreme Court -- advocating abolition
    of the death penalty, supporting affirmative action and defending
    individual rights, including a woman's right to an abortion.
   
    His departure gives Bush a chance to bolster an already solidifying
    majority of conservative justices on the nation's highest court. The
    president said he intends to ``move very swiftly'' in selecting a
    nominee.
   
    When Marshall's replacement is confirmed, a majority of five justices
    will have been appointed by Bush or former President Ronald Reagan.
    David Souter, the court's newest member, was Bush's first nominee.
    Reagan selected Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's first woman
    member, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. William Rehnquist,
    appointed to the court by former President Richard Nixon, was elevated
    to chief justice by Reagan.
   
    Marshall, who turns 83 next week, ia the oldest of the court's nine
    members. He had expressed hopes of staying on the court until a liberal
    successor was assured but has been in poor health in recent years. He
    had also increasingly found himself in the minority in court decisions.
   
    A dissent he authored in a ruling released Thursday articulated
    Marshall's frustration at watching a conservative majority of justices
    undo the legacy of his more liberal court of decades past.
   
    The decision ``is but a preview of an even broader and more
    far-reaching assault upon this court's precedents,'' predicted Marshall
    in Payne v. Tennessee, a death-penalty case. ``Cast aside today are
    those condemned to face society's ultimate penalty. Tomorrow's victim's
    may be minorities, women or the indigent.''
   
    Bruce Fein, a conservative legal scholar who served in the Reagan
    Justice Department, said Marshall's departure ``pressages the most
    dramatic change'' on the court since the 1930s.
   
    ``It will give the conservatives a 7-2 working majority in most
    instances,'' said Fein, with Justice Byron White joining Rehnquist and
    the five Reagan-Bush appointees.
   
    Reaction to Marshall's retirement immediately melded with speculation
    on his successor.
   
    ``The Supreme Court has lost a historic justice -- a hero for all
    Americans and all times,'' said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of
    the Judiciary Committee that holds confirmation hearings on federal
    judges. ``I hope the president will nominate a replacement who is
    worthy of this great man's place on the court and in our hearts.''
   
    There was widespread speculation that Bush would fill the vacancy with
    a black or Hispanic jurist. Among the names being mentioned:
   
    -- Clarence Thomas, a U.S. Appeals Court judge in Washington. Thomas, a
    conservative African-American from Georgia, served as head of the Equal
    Employment Oportunity Commission in the Reagan administration.
   
    -- Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse, a black women who was appointed to
    the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1979 by President
    Carter.
   
    -- Ferdinand Fernandez, a Reagan appointee to the 9th U.S. Circuit
    Court of Appeals in California. Picking the first Hispanic ever to the
    court would please the nation's growing number of Hispanic voters as
    Bush's reelection campaign nears.
   
    -- Ricardo Hinojosa, a federal district judge in Texas appointed in
    1983 by President Reagan.
   
    Or Bush could pick a second woman for the court. U.S. Trade Rep. Carla
    A. Hills or Edith H. Jones, a conservative on the federal appeals court
    in Texas, have been long considered potential justices.
   
    There has also been speculation that Solicitor General Kenneth Starr,
    the Justice Department's chief advocate before the Supreme Court, is
    also in line for elevation to the bench.
   
    Senate Democrats warned that nomination of a hardline conservative
    jurist would be met with opposition.
   
    ``President Bush would send a powerful message not just to all
    Americans but to all the world if he uses Thurgood Marshall as the
    model for his next nomination to the high court,'' advised Sen. Howard
    Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, a member of the Judiciary Committee.
   
    Feminist groups expressed fears that the next justice could tilt the
    conservative court even more toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the
    1973 decision guaranteeing the right to an abortion.
   
    Marshall's retirement brings the nation ``to a frightening
    crossroads,'' said Judith Lichtman, president of the Women's Legal
    Defense Fund.
  
    ``We call upon President Bush to put aside partisan politics and
    appoint a successor worthy of Marshall's legacy,'' she said.
   
    Long before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Marshall led the
    fight for equal rights for black Americans as a civil rights lawyer in
    the South.
   
    In 1954, he successfully argued the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education
    case before the Supreme Court that led to the desegregation of public
    schools, abolishing the nation's ``separate but equal'' racial
    policies.
   
    In 21 years as chief counsel for the NAACP, he won 29 of the 32 cases
    he argued before the Supreme Court.
   
    After Marshall joined the court in 1967, he wrote a number of major
    rulings upholding affirmative action programs designed to help blacks
    and other minorities overcome the legacy of discrimination. He has also
    opposed the death penalty in all circumstances.
   
    The announcement of Marshall's retirement made Thursday ``a sad day for
    civil rights and civil liberties because Thurgood Marshall -- who
    championed so many of the constitutional principles of equality --
    leaves at a time when that legacy is in decline,'' said Nadine
    Strossmen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union.
   
            *** End of Article *** 
 

    Ren'-
    If you were being petty, then you may align yourself within the
    ranks of petty speculators.
    If you were not, do not assign yourself with it.
    
    If I were addressing you, or thought you, in particular were being
    petty... I would have told you.  Probably in mail though.  You
    may have faith in that, if nothing else.
    
    None of this is civil rights-- or Thurgood.
    But in a way, our right to discuss it... both you and I,
    black females in a technical field at Dec is a far sight from
    where the world was when he started working on it. It is a 
    tribute to him in a way. He  may have had a lot to do with it.
    
    If we ever have progeny, I hope they too will have reps of justice,
    that will allow them the same rights.
    
    Cindi
           

    The Supreme Court has had a liberal slant (until quite recently) for at
    least 30 years. F.D.R. had four terms of the presidency (following
    about 12 or so years of Republican president (Hoover, Coolidge)
    In those 12+years of F.D.R. and 7+years of Harry Truman, many/most of
    the justices were repllaced by F.D.R. liberal nominees. In addition,
    the Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower. ("worst damn
    fool thing I did in my life": said Ike). So by 1954, Brown vs Board of
    Education was decided by a staunchly liberal court. This liberal
    orientation continued through part of Reagan's presidency such that the
    liberal/moderate orientation was finally broken by the appointments of
    Scalia/Kennedy/Oconnor/Souter
    

Marshall has wanted to retire for years because of declining health. Reputedly
he refused to retire while Reagan was president because he didn't want Reagan to
nominate his successor, and he hoped the next president would not be such an 
arch conservative. 

Unfortunately Bush is cut from the same ideological cloth as Reagan. I truly 
believe that the sole reason for Marshall's retirement is declining health and
age, and that, given the continuing conservative presidential trend, he would 
remain on the bench until death.

Marshall has done more to advance the rights of the oppressed and minorities 
than virtually any other person in the United States this century. He will be 
remembered and revered as a giant long after people like Bush, Reagan, Sununu, 
and their ilk have faded away into historical footnotes and obscurity.
   
His passing marks a continuing ominous trend toward repression of the rights of
all of us. 

    Siggghhh........
    
    Gone are the days when we had a genuine interest in helping and
    evolving with each other.  Back are the days when if I get the good
    stuff, the h*ll with you.
    
    Maybe Souter will line up if he sees some of the issues as right to
    privacy issues.
    
    Barb

    In the Time article that came out just before Marshall's announcement,
    there was a cited trend that some justices become more liberal as they
    age. let's hope these new folks age real soon...

"Morning Edition" this morning voiced a particularly interesting slant
to Marshall's decision to retire at this time.  He's putting Bush in a
pretty tough position.  Bush is fighting the very popular civil rights
bill that is presently in the Congress.  If Bush now appoints a really
conservative Justice so close to a Presidential election, that move will
not be forgotten.  It would make things *very* difficult for him in '92.
Republican leaders are saying that Marshall's action could not have come
at a worse time for the Republican party.

If this is true, I'll laygh all the way to the voting booth.

-d

    also, from today's Washington Post, Marshall has made his retirement
    conditional upon confirmation of a nominee.  This is totally his right
    to make this condition, although most justices retire unconditionally. 
    This takes away the urgency on the part of Bush to get someone
    appointed quickly.
    
    also, this quote, reprinted without permission:
    
    "Rather, those who know Marshall speculated it was the loss of his
    close friend Brennan and mounting frustration at the court's direction
    that led him to break his often-repeated vow to remain on the court
    'for the length of my term, which is life.'"
    
    that kinda confirms 'ren's suspicions that he just can't fight against
    it anymore.  what a sad commentary that one of the sole voices of
    reason in this country has to retire because he can't work with his
    peers in deciding fundamental fairness for the citizens of the United
    States.  
    
    We might as well kiss the Bill of Rights good-bye, it was nice knowing
    you.  i really fear for our country now.
    
    sue

re .16, Bruce-

(actually this belongs in the rathole)

> Unfortunately Bush is cut from the same ideological cloth as Reagan. 

I don't think so.  I always got the impression that Reagan was sincere.
Maybe stupid, maybe blind to certain aspects, but true to himself; and 
I found it hard to hate him.

Bush, on the other hand, is owned; and his moral spinelessness is easy
to despise.

DougO

	Thurgood: Enjoy your retirement. You've earned it, even if I don't 
	always agree with you. 

	There is precedent for retired Justices to continue assisting 
	the court in several ways. I hope he does so, to whatever extent
	he feels able.

	A real interesting position for Bush. Does he stick a 
	"white males need not apply" to the req? Or does he stay
	true to his "no quotas" line?

				Tom_K

    According to the news I heard this morning, although the Supreme
    Court is conservative, Congress has a liberal majority and is now
    in the process of enacting legislation to override the latest
    Supreme Court ruling of no abortion couseling in federally funded
    clinics.  Congress is also vowing to enact any legislation 
    necessary to continue to override the Supreme Court's rulings.
    Seems like Congress is starting to do it's job (IMHO).  
    
    I just hope that the bills pass with enough majority to override
    Bush's veto.
    
    Linda
    

Re: Reagan and Bush

I always felt Reagan was an actor continually on stage and acting, and nothing he
said or did had any substance beyond that. And yes, Bush has sold out. He does
what he and his advisors think is best from the media point of view. 
Unfortunately this point of view is horribly distorted.

But maybe we should watch what we say. Next there will be Supreme Court decision
saying that employees of companies that sell to the U.S.are not free to 
criticise the government. That is the direction we are heading toward.

No smily face. (Do we have symbols for the other end of the body?) 

Bruce

        re .24,
        
> No smily face. (Do we have symbols for the other end of the body?) 
        
        See HUMAN::ETIQUETTE topic 98 (esp. the base note and
        replies .3 and .4).
        
        Dan

From a widely distributed mail message:

At 2:00 President Bush announced his nominee to fill the vacancy in
the Supreme Court.

He nominated Clarence Thomas, a Black judge from the South.  Thomas
graduated from Holy Cross in 1971, after spending a year in the seminary
to become a Roman Catholic Priest.  

>  (Do we have symbols for the other end of the body?) 

Vonnegut's version, from Cat's Cradle:        *

DougO

	Actually DougO, It's from "Breakfast of Champions", which is his book
in which he also did the 'illustrations'.

						--DougG

Clarence Thomas is fiercely conservative and has been the target of much
controversy about, especially, his tenure as chairman of the EEOC,
during which time more than 13,000 age-discrimation suits were allowed
to die through inaction.  He is vocally opposed to Affirmative Action.
He also opposes much of Welfare, quite rightly saying that welfare can
become a debilitating narcotic.  Women's and minority groups are likely
to come out of the woodwork in opposition to his appointment, an event
that some commentators say the President is eagerly looking forward to,
as it promises a prospect of some serious political warfare, in which
Poppy revels.

I'd say we ought to deprive Bush of what he wants - let him appoint his
man without a fight - he's almost certain to win anyway - and then vote
every single Republican out of office next year in retaliation.  Your
mileage may vary.

-d

    re: .20
    
    -d, i like your last idea, but the members of the Supreme Court are
    appointed for life, not a two or four year term.  much more damage can
    be done.
    
    of course, that doesn't mean that we can't turn the rascals out anyway
    in the next several elections :)
    
    sue

    Who is Poppy?
    
    A life term is an especially long time considering that Clarence Thomas is
    only 43.
    
    ed

    That's George Bush's nickname.
    
    E Grace

...is the nickname George Bush acquired as a member of the blatantly
sexist Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University.  The name is
used in derision by cartoonist Garry Trudeau; Poppy's evil twin Skippy
is really responsible for it all...

-d

    Well, I'm going to NOW's national convention this weekend in NYC.
    I'll report back on what action NOW plans to take with this nominee.
    
    I'm hoping that if the Supreme Court does hear the Guam or Pennsylvania
    case, they do it in 1992 when it can do real harm to the presidential
    election.
    
    Of course, can you say POLITICS, boys and girls?  I'm willing to bet
    that the court will "pass" on hearing those cases and wait for the
    Louisiana case which will most likely make it there in 1993.
    
    It's going to be a long 40 years ahead of us with the Renquist court
    and whichever Chief Justice follows.
    
    judy

    
    re. 31 Yes, and unfortunately "only the good die young".
    
    CQ

    re: .35
    
    I can't believe you said that.  :'(

the greatest sadness at Marshall's retirement is the fact that we, as the
voting public, have failed him.  From all indications, the majority of
Americans ARE more liberal in their views...however, the people VOTING are
the middle-aged and older citizens of the bible belt.  They have skewed the
the political bent of this country to the very conservative - hence, we get
congress and the senate afraid to support women's rights or the civil rights
bill...and we get George Bush in his conservative disguise.  If the so-called 
majority ACTUALLY VOTED, we might have a more realistic congress and senate.
And, of course, George would be wearing his liberal disguise.

I'm not surprised that Marshall got tired of standing out there in the
wilderness, virtually alone.

His press conference was wonderful, though...the man went out blunt, feisty,
and not suffering fools gladly.  When asked why he was retiring, I believe
he said, "because I'm old and my body is falling apart!".  When asked what
should be done to correct racism in this country, he fixed the reporter
that asked the question with a hard glare and said, "there is not one person
in this country who doesn't know what to do to combat racism!".  He was not
in the mood to deal with stupid questions.

    
    I can't believe I said it either.  I don't really hope that any of the
    conservative judges has an unfortunate accident, it was just something
    wicked that popped into my head.
    
    CQ

    
    Some people just don't get it. GHWB won the election, yet the liberals
    just can't accept that votes came from a broader segment of society
    than just the usual male supemacists, bible thumpers, and cold warriors. 
    
    They've just gotta believe that the election was stolen by Jesse Helms
    and Robert Vigurie... pitiful.
    

    re.39 WADR Bush won because the Democrats shot themselves in
    the foot by nominating Dukakis.

>         <<< Note 895.40 by SA1794::CHARBONND "barbarian by choice" >>>
>                           -< with an elephant gun! >-

>    re.39 WADR Bush won because the Democrats shot themselves in
>    the foot by nominating Dukakis.

Come on Dana we know the Democrats don't like guns. :-} ;-} :-} :-}

in reality
only about 60% of those eligible in this country register to vote
only 50-60% of those registered vote, even in a presidential election .
the margin was close 47% to 53% or some such it wasn't a gigantic landslide
as I remember
so in reality you have about 13-16 % of the population electing *YOUR* 
president. 
I have read the exact %ages but the above is very close :-(

Amos

	An ABC poll indicated that 60% of Americans are glad that
	a conservative was nominated.

					Tom_K

    It's great to see Marshall finally get ot of office. He should have
    left years ago.

RE:   <<< Note 895.43 by COMET::PAPA "NEVER let anyone stop you from singing" >>>
                     -< Thank Goodness he's finally gone >-

   > It's great to see Marshall finally get ot of office. He should have
   > left years ago.


     Yep.  Then we would have less rights and freedoms to be concerned with
     today with no "conscience" on the court to remind the rest of them that 
     this is still America.





Jim

    
    re small dedicated groups
    
    which groups would these be? 
    
    the polls in favor of Brady prove you gunnuts wrong...

    
    please refrain from using insulting language about various groups of
    people in this file.
    
    -Jody
    

    I doubt if any of this will make any difference in the long run,
    because I suspect Bush is unlikely to lose the 1992 election; thus we
    can count on a reactionary Supreme Court for some time.  And if, by
    some chance, Bush's popularity should fall by next year, he can always
    just find another foreign leader to depict as Hitler incarnate, and then
    kill a few thousand of said Hitler's civilian constituency through a
    sustained bombing campaign, describe the civilian carnage as
    "collateral damage", proclaim victory, and lastly ride on the wave of
    patriotic hysteria about another glorious military "victory" to the
    January 1993 inauguration.

    When it comes right down to it, I don't see many alternatives left for
    people of conscience in response to the rightward trend of American
    politics.  Other than giving up on politics altogether, a more extreme
    response would be to simply give up on the United States and find
    someplace else to live.  But I have too many ties to this country, and
    I like watching NFL football on fall Sundays too much :-), to seriously
    consider that option, so instead I am drifting more in the direction
    that my brother has taken recently.

    My brother, who I saw last April while I was on my way to New England,
    illustrates one possible option.  As a former antiwar activist during
    his college days in the 1960s, the sight of contemporary college
    students supporting the Gulf War was simply too offensive to bear; so
    he now spends his energy and time watching baseball and other sporting
    events.  He does try to impart a progressive vision to his sons
    (watching him flash a peace sign to his four-year-old, and asking him
    what it means--"No blood for oil" being the correct response--indicates
    that he hasn't *totally* withdrawn from politics, I suppose).  But
    ultimately it is his view that political activism is pointless, and the
    emotional frustration of trying to deal with it simply isn't worth it.

    I might not have shared my brother's cynicism, but the recent Supreme
    Court decisions, and Thurgood Marshall's retirement, have lately
    suggested that things are only going to get worse.  The Supreme Court
    is going to be dominated by young, right wing appointees, well into the
    next century, and we might as well get used to it.

    -- Mike

>    I might not have shared my brother's cynicism, but the recent Supreme
>    Court decisions, and Thurgood Marshall's retirement, have lately
>    suggested that things are only going to get worse.  The Supreme Court
>    is going to be dominated by young, right wing appointees, well into the
>    next century, and we might as well get used to it.

which would be okay if the Congressional and Senatorial representatives
in Washington DC actually reflected the needs and wants of their constituency.
Recent polls conducted by ABC News, NBC News and several other magazines
indicate that a clear majority of Americans support Women's rights, for
instance, and the question was asked to specifically address the right to
choose abortion.  The majority still support a woman's right to choose; while
not liking the idea of abortion at all, they still feel it should be a woman's
right to choose.  Yet, we do not have a federal law that declares a woman's
body is her own property, NOT THE PROPERY OF THE STATE.  Without this law,
Roe vs Wade is leaning on the very precarious defense of rights of privacy.
With the conservative leaning of the Supreme Court now, it is inevitable that
this defense will not stand....rights of privacy are being eroded every day
by this court.  Civil rights laws are also going to suffer because the federal
government will not enforce the laws that stand, nor pass new ones.

Get the other 87% of the eligible voters to vote and you would have the
laws in place.

The conservative definition of the Supreme Court's function is to interpret
current law only, AND TO AVOID MAKING NEW LAW which is determined to be the
business of the Congress and Senate.  If we had the laws the majority of
the citizens of this country want and deserve, the court would be our
friend.   Marshall was the last of the liberal judges - those who felt that
the constitution of this land promised certain inalienable rights, whether
they are clearly written into law or not, and their job was to interpret
court cases in the light of support of these "promised" or intended rights.
We will all miss him and his brethern before long.  It takes bravery to
propose new laws - you chance making someone angry enough to vote against
you in the next election.  All our rights are now at risk.

    
    re .47:
    
    Mike, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm sure it's
    not giving up fighting.
    

    Ellen, you are right, of course.  I'm just feeling cynical today.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

Mike, there are lot's of issues you and I disagree on but
1) Marshalls passing will hurt us all.
2) don't stop fighting for liberties.

Amos

    A few cents worth at this stage...
    
    1) Thomas has awesome iconography.  In other words, Bush couldn't have
    picked a person better suited as far as the story of his life goes. 
    Thomas stands as an example of someone raised in trying circumstances
    at best who has been very sucessful.  Bush's political manuevering was
    brilliant on that count. Although this is certainly ironic from the "No
    Quotas" PResident
    
    2) To call Judge Thomas "the best man for the job" is an insult to the
    American people, the judicial system and the Constitution.  Thomas is
    certainly a bright and capable person, but he is by no means the
    "best."   He has barely a year's experience as a federal jurist, he has
    almost no background whatsoever in Constitutional law and he even has
    very little experience as a practicing lawyer. The ABA has given him a
    mediocre review.  Most of his career has been spent in appointed posts.  
    With Souter at least you could say that he was undeniably a brilliant legal
    scholar.  If Thomas is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will be the least
    qualified person to make it in recent memory.  In due time, he may be a
    "qualified" choice for the court, but not at this time in his career.
    
    3)If Thomas is confirmed it will effectively rewrite the way this
    country thinks about civil rights.  All issues of 'quotas' not
    withstanding, the man is singularly hostile to the entire notion of
    class action suites which have been an integral part of descrimination
    cases in our legal system.  His track record at the Equal Opprtunity
    Office for the Reagan administration is proof of that.  We can only
    infer his attitude towards Roe but I don't have my hopes up.
    
    All things considered, this nominee makes me scared...I hope ther
    Senate has the courage to recognize his flaws apart from his
    iconography and not confirm his nomination.
    
    \D/

    Actually, I kept getting just a titch upset at "he's the best *man* for
    the job."  Okay, but is he the best *person* for the job?
    
    E Grace

    re: .53
    
    Yeah, me too...that's the direct quote from Mr. Bush however...and
    that's why I put in in quotes too.
    
    Lots of persons better qualified than this person.

    Daniel, I was not addressing that to *you*.  I had meant to mention
    that last week and forgot.  Your post just reminded me of it.
    
    E Grace

    The trouble is, unfortunately, that the Senate is between a rock and
    a hard place. If they fail to confirm Thomas, the Executive branch
    will undoubtedly suggest that racial discrimination was the basis.
    
    --- jerry

    re: -.1  now *that* would be cute!  watching the veto-civil-rights
    president accuse Ted Kennedy, Paul Simon and George Mitchell of rascim! 
    oh, what a hoot!
    
    \D/

    
    
    He didn't veto civil rights.  He vetoed quotas.
    

    
    re .59:
    
    Not everyone believes that - and you know it, Nick.
    

    
    I've moved the discussion of AA and quotas to the rathole -- if
    discussion of it continues there, we can start a new note about it.
    Let's keep this string for a discussion of the Justice Marshall's
    retirement and his likely replacement.
    
    Justine - Womannotes Comod

    For a second I thought I had somehow missed a discussion about recovery 
    from alcoholism, Justine!  (*8
    
    
    E Grace 

    For a second I thought I had somehow missed a discussion about recovery 
    from alcoholism, Justine!  (*8

Great minds think alike???

D!

    Yup....Me too!
    
      -HA

This is a long note, but I feel this information is of interest to 
enough of the noters that it is worth the work.  Those who are not
interested should enter <NEXT UNSEEN>.  This is an excerpt from
a commencement speech given to the Savannah State College, Georgia,
graduating class on June 9, 1985 by Clarence Thomas, George Bush's
nominee to the Supreme Court.

"I grew up here in Savannah.  I was born not far from here.  I am a
child of those marshes, a son of that soil.  I am a descendent of the
slaves whose labors made the dark soil of the South productive.

I am the great-great-grandson of a freed slave, whose enslavement
continued after my birth.  I am the product of hatred and love - the
hatred of the social and political structure which dominated the
segregated, hate-filled city of my youth, and the love of some
people - my mother, my grandparents, my neighbors and relatives - who
said by their actions, 'you can make it, but first you must endure'.

You can survive, but first you must endure.
You can live, but first you must endure.
You must endure the unfairness.  You must endure the hatred.
You must endure the bigotry.  You must endure the segregation.
You must endure the indignities.

I stand before you as one who had the same beginning as yourselves - as
one who has walked a little farther down the road, climbed a little 
higher up the mountain.

I come back to you, who must now travel this road and climb this steep
mountain that lies ahead.  I return as a messenger, a scout.  What lies
ahead of you is even tougher than what is behind you.  That mean,
callous world out there is still very much filled with discrimination.
It still holds out a different life for those who do not happen to be
the 'right' race or the 'right' sex.  It is a world in which the
'haves' continue to reap more dividends than the 'have-nots'.

You will enter a world in which more than one-half of all black children 
are born primarily to youthful mothers and out of wedlock.  You will
enter a world in which the black teen-age unemployment rate, as always,
is more than double that of white teen-agers.  Yours will be a world
in which computers and computer technology are a way of life.

There is a tendency among young, upwardly mobile, intelligent minorities
to forget.  We forget the sweat of our forefathers.  We forget the
blood of the marchers, the prayers and hope of our race.  We forget who
brought us into this world.  We overlook who put food in our mouths.
We forget committment to excellence.  We procreate with pleasure and
retreat from the responsibilities of the babies we produce.  We subdue,
we seduce, but we don't respect ourselves, our women, or our babies.

How do we expect a race that has been thrown into the gutter of 
socio-economic indicators to rise above these humiliating circumstances
if we hide from responsibility for our own destiny?

Over the past 15 years I have watched as others have jumped quickly at
the opportunity to make excuses for black Americans.  It is said blacks
cannot start businesses because of discrimination.  But I remember 
businesses on East Broad and West Broad that were run in spite of 
bigotry.  It is said that we can't learn because of bigotry.  But I know 
for a fact that tens of thousands of blacks were educated at 
historically black colleges in spite of discrimination.  We learned to
read in spite of segregated libraries.  We built homes in spite of 
segregated neighborhoods.

We have lost something.  We look for role models in all the wrong 
places.  We refuse to look back in our not distant past for the lessons 
and values we need to carry us into the uncertain future.
We ignore what has permitted blacks in this country to survive the 
brutality of slavery.  We overlook the reality of positive values and 
run to the mirage of promises, visions, and dreams. 

I dare not come to this city, which only two decades ago clung so tenaciously
to segregation, bigotry and Jim Crowism, to convince you of the fairness of 
this society.  My memory is too precise, my recollection too keen, to 
venture down that path of self-delusion.  I am not blind to our history 
- nor do I turn a deaf ear to the pleas and cries of black Americans.

Often, I must struggle to contain my outrage at what has happened to 
black Americans - what continues to happen - what we let happen, and 
what we do to ourselves.

In 1964, when I entered the seminary, I was the only black in my class 
and one of two in the school.  A year later, I was the only one in the 
school.  Not a day passed that I was not pricked by prejudice.  But, I
had an advantage over black students and kids today.  I had never 
heard any excuses made.  Nor had I seen my role models take comfort in
excuses.  The women who worked in those kitchens and waited on the bus 
knew it was prejudice which caused their plight, but that didn't stop 
them.  My grandfather knew why his business wasn't more successful, but 
that didn't stop him from getting up at 2 in the morning to carry ice,
wood, and fuel oil.

Sure, they knew it was bad.  They knew all too well that they were held 
back by prejudice.  But, they weren't pinned down by it.  They fought 
discrimination.  Equally important, they fought against the awful 
effects of prejudice by doing all they could do in spite of this 
obstacle.  They could still send their children to school.  They could
still respect and help each other.  They could moderate their use of 
alcohol.  They could still be decent, law-abiding citizens. 

I had the benefit of people who knew they had to walk a straighter line, 
climb a taller mountain, and carry a heavier load.

You all have a much tougher road to travel.  Not only do you have to 
contend with the ever-present bigotry, you must do so with a recent 
tradition that almost requires you to wallow in excuses.  Unlike me, you
must not only overcome the repressiveness of racism, you must also 
contend with the lure of excuses.  You have twice the job I had.

Do not be lured by sirens and purveyors of misery who profit from 
constantly regurgitating all that is wrong with black Americans and 
blaming these problems on others.  Do not succumb to this temptation of 
always blaming others.  Rather, become obsessed with looking for 
solutions to our problems.  

I have taken a long, hard look.  I have seen two roads.  On the first 
road, a race of people is rushing mindlessly down a highway of sweet, 
intoxicating destruction, with all it's bright lights and grand 
promises, constructed by social scientists and politicians.   To the 
side, ther is a seldom used, overgrown road leading through the valley 
of life with all it's pitfalls and obstacles.  This is the road - the 
old-fashioned road - traveled by those who endured slavery, who endured 
Jim Crowism, who endured hatred.  it is the road that might reward 
hard work and discipline, that might reward intelligence, that might be 
fair and provide equal opportunity.  But there are no guarentees.  You 
must choose.  The lure of the highway is seductive and enticing.  But 
the destruction is certain.  To travel the road of hope and opportunity 
is hard and dufficult, but there is a chance that you might somehow, 
some way, with the help of God, make it."

copied without permission from the San Jose Mercury News, Friday July 
26, 1991.