Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush is considering Thomas (porn king) as moral leader of Supreme Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
TrueAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:14 PM
Original message
Bush is considering Thomas (porn king) as moral leader of Supreme Court
Edited on Sun Nov-07-04 07:15 PM by TrueAmerican
http://drudgereport.com/sc.htm

Thomas for Chief Justice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Bushes want a good laugh for their cocktail parties.
Let's all show up to watch Congress rubberstamp this insult.

Nah.

George is breaking everything he doesn't understand. Like a child who never developed into an adult.

If it's mean-spirited and viciously spiteful, it's George.

Wait, did Scalia not lick his boots sufficiently?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. he said it was his 'style'
Edited on Sun Nov-07-04 07:35 PM by rozf
he's spendin' that political capital.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Anita Hill's main debunker now says she was telling the truth
Edited on Sun Nov-07-04 07:19 PM by htuttle
It was David Brock who spread all those lies. He came over to our side.

I would have to think it would come up if they tried to confirm him?

Wait a minute. Nevermind.

For a moment, I imagined I lived in some other country...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keirsey Donating Member (508 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. C'mon, David
Edited on Sun Nov-07-04 07:23 PM by Keirsey
You know more than you told in Blinded by the Right.

Tell us all that you know about Clarence Thomas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. oh PUKE!
:puke: :puke:

Can someone explain to me how this POS even GOT on the SC? I remember a big scandal...but I was too young(6 or 7 at the time I think) to remember details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollywood926 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It had to do with a pubic hair on a coke can...
Anita Hill accused the POS of sexual harrassment and there were hearings and she was vilified...the usual. She was just a black woman, so she had no credibility in this country. It was sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. shit
That's so freakin' pathetic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. David Brock's
Blinded by the Right also covers the Clarence Thomas fiasco, among other things. Very interesting reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. There is no such thing as
a moral leader of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the United States is not and should not be considered the moral leader of the Supreme Court. Having said that, Thomas is not qualified to be Chief Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. hell, he's not qualified 2 sit
Edited on Sun Nov-07-04 07:34 PM by rozf
on the SCOTUS but there his self-hating ass sits.

I believe his nomination was the very first time a nominee was NOT a recommendation by the ABA. I Blieve it was george I that was the first president 2 abandon the ABA and rely on the Hertitage Foundation or some other RW think tank 4 nominees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. A lot of people don't know....
that even before the Anita Hill/sexual harrasment thing came up, Thomas
was one of the lowest rated Federal Judges. He was ONLY nominated
as a token to make the Republicans look non-racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. NO, Jade Fox!
Thomas' reocrd is "simply extraordinary!"

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elfin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's really appointing Scalia
without appointing Scalia - since Slappy only does what Scalia does and makes his decisions to closely correspond with Scalia.

The only exception to this that I recall was his vote on the cross burnng case.

Court reporters have noted many times that Slappy hardly ever asks any questions on his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. But Bush is a good Christian, isn't he?
If he does this, will the believers get how they have been hoodwinked? Or is pornography ok now, as long as it is Christian pornography?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
15. If this report was from the Bush administration, it is a lie.
The Bush administration never even considers being truthful when it is possible to lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. You're reading drudge, why?
Edited on Sun Nov-07-04 07:45 PM by bunkerbuster1
Why do people keep going to that pig's website?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-04 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. Don't you mean "Good Ol' Clarence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC