A lot of us who subscribe to the Bulwark respect Clarence Thomas, admire some critical aspects of his jurisprudence, and have compassion for what we feel has been 32 years of what he accurately described as a "high-tech lynching", and an unparalleled one for its unremitting mercilessness, and its lack of justification. I'm not going to d…
A lot of us who subscribe to the Bulwark respect Clarence Thomas, admire some critical aspects of his jurisprudence, and have compassion for what we feel has been 32 years of what he accurately described as a "high-tech lynching", and an unparalleled one for its unremitting mercilessness, and its lack of justification. I'm not going to debate Clarence Thomas's character and history with you or anyone else: everyone's opinions are set in stone after 32 years, and hurling them at each other will only detract from the total happiness in the world. I'm just reminding you who some of the people to whom you're opining are.
I agree with everything that Mona said. In addition, through the years I've become more and more concerned at the way that Justice Thomas has seemed to cling to all the attacks, smears, slurs, and slights that he's received, to cherish his grievances instead of letting them go, and to have become so embittered that he treats the world as an enemy and the rules as not applying to him, because they're unjust by definition. Good men and women MAY do that; GREAT men and women never do. That's a bad position for anyone, and a deadly one for a judge.
As for his wife, Tolstoy got it wrong: all happy marriages are NOT the same. No matter how good their relationship may be when they're at home, her activities are damaging to his professional life, and she doesn't seem to care. His extrajudicial actions, her political actions, and the way both of them fail to react to the consequences of them indicate to me that it's time for him to retire.
I appreciate your opinion and agree strongly with your last sentence. As for the rest, we must agree to disagree, and while I recognize that there are subscribers who will not agree with me, I don’t feel that it’s my obligation to make them happy.
A lot of us who subscribe to the Bulwark respect Clarence Thomas, admire some critical aspects of his jurisprudence, and have compassion for what we feel has been 32 years of what he accurately described as a "high-tech lynching", and an unparalleled one for its unremitting mercilessness, and its lack of justification. I'm not going to debate Clarence Thomas's character and history with you or anyone else: everyone's opinions are set in stone after 32 years, and hurling them at each other will only detract from the total happiness in the world. I'm just reminding you who some of the people to whom you're opining are.
I agree with everything that Mona said. In addition, through the years I've become more and more concerned at the way that Justice Thomas has seemed to cling to all the attacks, smears, slurs, and slights that he's received, to cherish his grievances instead of letting them go, and to have become so embittered that he treats the world as an enemy and the rules as not applying to him, because they're unjust by definition. Good men and women MAY do that; GREAT men and women never do. That's a bad position for anyone, and a deadly one for a judge.
As for his wife, Tolstoy got it wrong: all happy marriages are NOT the same. No matter how good their relationship may be when they're at home, her activities are damaging to his professional life, and she doesn't seem to care. His extrajudicial actions, her political actions, and the way both of them fail to react to the consequences of them indicate to me that it's time for him to retire.
I appreciate your opinion and agree strongly with your last sentence. As for the rest, we must agree to disagree, and while I recognize that there are subscribers who will not agree with me, I don’t feel that it’s my obligation to make them happy.