Liberal Legal Scholars Reassess Clarence Thomas and Finally Acknowledge His Jurisprudential Brilliance [UPDATED]

My favorite Supreme Court Justice, and one of the greatest men I have ever had the honor of meeting, is finally receiving his proper due and grudging respect from the liberals that make up the bulk of constitutional legal scholars:

Lord of the Rings aficionados know that the evil lord Sauron paid little attention to the danger posed by two hobbits slowly struggling across the mountains and deserts of Mordor until he suddenly realized that the ring on which all his power depended was about to be hurled into the pits of Mount Doom. All at once the enemy plan became clear; what looked like stupidity was revealed as genius, and Sauron understood everything just when it was too late to act.

Jeffrey Toobin’s gripping, must-read profile of Clarence and Virginia Thomas in the New Yorker gives readers new insight into what Sauron must have felt: Toobin argues that the only Black man in public life that liberals could safely mock and despise may be on the point of bringing the Blue Empire down.

In fact, Toobin suggests, Clarence Thomas may be the Frodo Baggins of the right; his lonely and obscure struggle has led him to the point from which he may be able to overthrow the entire edifice of the modern progressive state.

[...]

At most liberals have long seen Thomas as the Sancho Panza to Justice Antonin Scalia’s Don Quixote, Tonto to his Lone Ranger. No, says Toobin: the intellectual influence runs the other way. Thomas is the consistently clear and purposeful theorist that history will remember as an intellectual pioneer; Scalia the less clear-minded colleague who is gradually following in Thomas’ tracks.

If Toobin’s [revisionist] take is correct, (and I defer to his knowledge of the direction of modern constitutional thought) it means that liberal America has spent a generation mocking a Black man as an ignorant fool, even as constitutional scholars stand in growing amazement at the intellectual audacity, philosophical coherence and historical reflection embedded in his judicial work... (emphasis added)

[Definitely read the whole thing, as well as Toobin's piece]

My Comments:
High time that the community of legal and constitutional scholars began to recognize and openly acknowledge what I have long known about this brilliant man.


UPDATE
And let's be clear about one thing: Justice Thomas' chief crime in the eyes of his left-wing critics has never been that he couldn't think for himself, as they have so often accused him, but rather that he DARED to think for himself rather than subscribing to the groupthink orthodoxy that supposedly condemns all African-Americans to having to think and act a certain way in order to be "authentically black".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on the subject:
Pay No Attention to the Caricature Painted by His Mean-Spirited Detractors ...

Kmiec's "Bridge Too Far"? Obama's Attacks on Justice Thomas

Sen. Obama Demeans Justice Thomas' Intellect [UPDATED]

National Review on Justice Clarence Thomas' New Memoir

Justice Clarence Thomas Tells 60 Minutes That Abortion Was Real Issue at His Confirmation Hearings

The Supreme Court’s Most Interesting Catholic

Defending Justice Thomas

Reading the Constitution Right: The Jurisprudence of Justice Clarence Thomas

Why Is the Left Hostile to Vietnamese-Americans?

On Tuesday, Congress lost its sole Vietnamese-American member, thanks in no small part to efforts by the left to target his Congressional district for pick up. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA), a devout pro-life Catholic, had became the nation's first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress in 2008 when he defeated nine-term incumbent William Jefferson who was facing federal corruption charges. Cao represented a majority-black district in New Orleans that has always been a traditional Democrat stronghold, so his ability to hold onto the seat was always going to be tenuous. But it wasn't hopeless, especially in a big GOP year like 2010.

However, the Democrats and the far left made recapturing Cao's seat a top priority. In fact, President Obama during the 2010 election cycle cut exactly ONE ad for a Congressional candidate, and that candidate was Cao's opponent. This despite the fact that Cao had been anything BUT a partisan member of the GOP and had even voted for the House version of ObamaCare when it still contained the Stupak language banning abortion funding. Cao seemed a caught off guard and hurt by the President's decision to actively campaign for his opponent, given Cao's willingness to reach across the aisle and work with the President and the Democrats on certain issues.

While I understand the Democrat impetus to pick up House seats where they could in a year that was going to be otherwise awfully tough for them, it does raise some questions (at least in my mind) that the President would be so glib about going above and beyond to defeat the country's lone Vietnamese-American member of Congress.

And then there's the case of Van Tran. Van Tran was the Republican challenger to the truly repugnant California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez in Tuesday's elections. He lost to Sanchez, in no small part, because of blatant racial demagoguery. Sanchez, speaking to Spanish-language station Univision about her opponent, claimed that "The Vietnamese are after my seat":

"The Vietnamese and the Republicans are, with an intensity, trying to take this seat from which we have done so much for our community — to take this seat and give it to this Van Tran, who is very anti-immigrant and very anti-Hispanic.”

You may wonder how Van Tran, who immigrated with his family from Vietnam to the U.S. in 1975, could be "anti-immigrant". Well, that's because to the Democrat Party only certain kinds of immigrants "count" (that would be those who haven't fled from commie hell holes like Vietnam and Cuba). You see, this seat "belongs" to Mexican-American Democrats, which makes you automatically "racist" and "anti-immigrant" if you are trying to win it and you happen not to be a Mexican-American Democrat.

So, to the Democrat mindset, an ACTUAL immigrant fleeing communist oppression in Vietnam is "anti-immigrant" just because he is a Republican, while the pampered American-born child of middle-class Mexican immigrants who came to this country for economic opportunities automatically qualifies for the "poor oppressed me" club just because she is a Democrat.

It seems somewhat odd that the party that calls itself the "party of immigrants" has NEVER had a Vietnamese-American among its Congressional ranks, and that the supposedly "anti-immigrant" party ran two such candidates in the 2010 Congressional elections. What seems even more odd is that the alleged "party of immigrants" would go to such extremes to oppose those two Vietnamese-American candidates. One might think that the left has a problem with Vietnamese-American immigrants. That's because they do.

Recall what religious left icon Jim Wallis said about the Vietnamese Boat People:

Following the 1979 refugee crisis in Vietnam, Wallis lashed out at the desperate masses fleeing North Vietnam's communist forces by boat. These refugees, as Wallis saw it, had been "inoculated" by capitalist influences during the war and were absconding "to support their consumer habit in other lands." Wallis then admonished critics against pointing to the boat people to "discredit" the righteousness of Vietnam's newly victorious Communist regime.

Hmmmm. That's revealing. I can't help but think that the primary reason for the left-wing coolness toward Vietnamese-Americans is that this particular immigrant population serve as a constant reminder to us all of the devastating consequences suffered by the Vietnamese population as a result of the perfidious left's embrace of North Vietnam's communist oppressors who were trying to overrun South Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

How dare these Vietnamese immigrants prefer America to the Maoist utopia the left had given so much aid and comfort to creating for them back in Southeast Asia?!?!?

NPR Thinks Wishing Jesse Helms or One of His Grandchildren Would Die of AIDS is Okay [UPDATED]

This is the only conclusion one can draw from National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams after Williams related to Bill O'Reilly his understandable anxiety over flying with Muslims after 9-11 (while nevertheless warning O'Reilly of the necessity of not stereotyping all Muslims for the actions of a few), but NOT firing Nina Totenberg several years ago after making the following statement:

“... if there's retributive justice, [Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

As the linked piece notes, Totenberg is still NPR's legal affairs correspondent. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, therefore, that NPR thinks it's just great for one of its correspondents to publicly wish AIDS upon the innocent grandchildren of someone with whom that correspondent disagrees politically.

Any doubts about whether NPR is anything more than a left-wing propaganda organ may now be removed.




UPDATE
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth


UPDATE #2 (22 October)




UPDATE #3 (22 October)
The Corner has complied a list of Nina Totenberg's Greatest Hits: "What About Totenberg?"

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Meanwhile, the NPR ombudman/person, while noting that the firing was "poorly handled", nevertheless defends the public broadcaster's decision to terminate the contract of Juan Williams.


UPDATE #4 (22 October)
For the record, someone in this whole Juan Williams - NPR dustup made a public comment that should cost someone that person's job. That someone was NOT Juan Williams, but NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller:


Someone needs a refresher course on HR dos and don'ts. Ms. Schiller has likely opened up herself and NPR for a lawsuit. I, for one, hope Williams decides to take them to the cleaners.

TIME: Money-Grubbing Joooooos Don't Care If People Die as Long as They're Getting Rich

TIME Magazine explains "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace":

... Quote unquote:

The truth? In the week that three Presidents, a King and their own Prime Minister gather at the White House to begin a fresh round of talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer. A watching world may still define their country by the blood feud with the Arabs whose families used to live on this land and whether that conflict can be negotiated away, but Israelis say they have moved on… Asked in a March poll to name the “most urgent problem” facing Israel, just 8% of Israeli Jews cited the conflict with Palestinians, putting it fifth behind education, crime, national security and poverty. Israeli Arabs placed peace first.

Obviously that poll actually shows that Israelis are preoccupied with educating their children, keeping their families safe from crime, and not getting killed by neighboring countries. Ergo listing those as priorities one, two, and three. But why let mere numbers get in the way of “Jews are too busy ‘making money’ to embrace negotiations?” ...

(emphasis added by Mere Rhetoric)

The Last Refuge of a Liberal

Charles Krauthammer writes:

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

[...]

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card.

[...]

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

[Read the whole thing]

The "D" Makes All the Difference

Bill Clinton's eulogy of the late Sen. Robert Byrd proves that, as long as you put a "D" next to your name, there's no manner of despicable activity that you can engage in for which your fellow travelers and the media will not make excuses for you.

But heaven forbid you say some kind things about an old man at his birthday party and have an "R" next to your name. You'll lose your job over it.


UPDATE
More from HotAir:

... contra Billy Jeff, Byrd’s association with the Klan wasn’t exactly “fleeting.” He joined in 1942; four years later, he was still babbling about his hope for a KKK renaissance in West Virginia. And 18 years after that, he famously filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Nothing necessarily racist about opposing a statute, of course, but then that logic didn’t save Rand Paul a few months ago when he raised libertarian concerns about a single section of that same law (before reiterating that he would have voted for it anyway). Exit question: How bad, precisely, do your actions have to be before the “he was just trying to get elected” defense doesn’t cut it?

(emphasis added)

That's a good question. For the 100% absolutely correct answer to the question of what action is beyond the pale for these people, click here.

Helen Thomas Tells Jews to "Get the Hell Out of Palestine" and "Go Back to Poland and Germany" ... [UPDATED]

... presumably, where the unfinished business of 1933-45 can commence. (See, e.g., Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.)

Here's proof that Yassir Arafat isn't dead; he's just dressed in drag and disguised as a 109-year-old White House press correspondent:



Bless her heart. She's just waiting around on Willard Scott to call out her name one morning.


UPDATE
If the words of the Grand Dame sound eerily familiar, that's because they echo something we've heard before:

Iran's Ahmadinejad says Israel should be moved to Europe

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for massacring Jews during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil.

Ahmadinejad, who sparked an international outcry in October when he said Israel "must be wiped off the map", also repeated his view Thursday that the Jewish state was a "tumour".

"Now that you believe the Jews were oppressed, why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?" the hardline president asked in an interview with Iran's Arabic-language satellite channel, Al-Alam.

"Why did you come to give a piece of Islamic land and the territory of the Palestinian people to them?

"You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish any government they want. We would support it," he said, according to a transcript of his original Farsi-language comments given to AFP.

"So, Germany and Austria, come and give one, two or any number of your provinces to the Zionist regime so they can create a country there which all of Europe will support and the problem will be solved at its root," he said.

Helen, too, wants the "tumor" excised.

New Book: Acting White

Friend of this blog and frequent St. Blog's commenter, Stuart Buck, has written a new book titled Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation.

Definitely check it out.

Politico Says Catholic Church Racist and Sexist

Writing at Creative Minority Report, Matthew Archbold highlights an opinion piece at Politico that seems a prime candidate for Don McClarey's new series on "Know-Nothingism":

I present to you as a gift the most ridiculous and just laughably bad attempt to slime the Catholic Church by The Politico in weeks.

But this attack on the Church is just so poorly done that I literally laughed out loud on reading it. You've got to check it out.

[Read the whole thing]

Bishop of Memphis Implies 80 of His Brother Bishops - Including at Least 2 Cardinals - Are "Racist"

It is a shame to see how, even in the Church, the race card is played indiscriminately and without regard to the truth, but especially so when it comes from those in a position of authority who ought to know better:

... Some racism still exists, [Bishop J. Terry Steib of the Diocese of Memphis] said, and cited the recent furor in Catholic circles over the honorary degree awarded by Notre Dame University to Obama, who supports abortion on demand.

Other presidents have had disagreements with the positions of the Catholic Church, for example, in war policies and capital punishment, but have received honorary degrees without similar objection, he noted.

It is the subtle racism that still exists which contributes to the lack of priestly vocations among young black men because “it leads to a mistrust of the Church among young black men and women,” he said. “Let’s acknowledge that.” ...

I think it's best if I just keep my thoughts on this one to myself.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
What the Left ... and Especially the Catholic Left ... Hope to Accomplish With the "Racism" Charge [UPDATED]

U.S. Bishops Praise Bishop D’Arcy in Wake of Notre Dame Scandal

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Two Bishops Reflect on Obama at Notre Dame

Who's Really Playing a "Political Game" in the Notre Dame Imbroglio

Of "Neo-Caths" and "Sharia Catholicism"

Bishop D'Arcy Publicly Corrects President Jenkins' "Flawed Justification for His Actions" [UPDATED]

Notre Dame's President Jenkins: "We Are Tremendously Proud" to be Acting in Defiance of the US Catholic Bishops

Proof that the Group Calling Itself "Catholic Democrats" is More "Democrat" Than "Catholic" [UPDATED]

Evansville Bishop Won't Attend Pro-Life Banquet with GOP's Steele as Speaker

Bishop D'Arcy Speaks on Notre Dame and Obama; Bishop Will Not Attend Boycott Ceremony

Quotes of the Day for 9/18/09 [UPDATED]

From Jonah Goldberg:

... Magically, the alchemic powers of Obama’s black skin transmogrify the same arguments and the same rhetoric into racism. Saying “you’re wrong” to a white politician is a disagreement; saying it to a black politician is like shouting through Bull Connor’s megaphone.

It’s been said that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. Well, these people can indict a ham sandwich for being racist. There is not an issue, topic, or flavor of ice cream that Al Sharpton won’t inject racism into. But suddenly Larry King needs to ask him whether opposition to socialized medicine is racist — as if Sharpton’s response was ever in doubt. Why not just ask the host of an infomercial whether you really need a ShamWow?

***
But others just won’t let go. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times hears Rep. Joe Wilson shout, “You lie!” And her instinctive response is: “Fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!”

It’s the “fair or not” that gives Dowd away. She admits to hearing racism whether or not it’s warranted. That’s called prejudice. And unlike Wilson’s foolish outburst, Dowd’s was carefully considered. Dowd, Carter and Sharpton can’t grasp that conservatives are less hung up on race than they are and that we can get past Obama’s skin color. “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it,” writes Dowd. She’s right. She’s one of them.

(emphasis added)


UPDATE
From John McCain:


"It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as, if not the worst President in history, certainly the worst in the 20th century."
~ Sen. John McCain


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
What the Left ... and Especially the Catholic Left ... Hope to Accomplish With the "Racism" Charge [UPDATED]

What the Left ... and Especially the Catholic Left ... Hope to Accomplish With the "Racism" Charge [UPDATED]

Look, I don't blame the left for playing the "race card". While it is detestable and immoral to calumniate one's opponents in such a fashion, I also recognize that it is the best card they have and that they're going to play it. It's worked as a trump so many times before that the left would be absolutely foolish, politically, not to continue playing it.

But I expect a little more from Catholics on the left. Perhaps naively on my part, I hope for Catholics of whatever political stripe to put the tenets of their Faith ahead of the platform of their party. Surely Catholics who take their Faith seriously wouldn't stoop to calumniating those with whom they disagree politically as "racists", would they?

Guess again.

First up was America Magazine and National Catholic Reporter blogger Michael Sean Winters, whose race-baiting was ably dissected by The Curt Jester in "A deck full of race cards".

Following suit was Winters' fellow parishioner and partisan hack extraordinaire, Tony A, who Michael D eviscerated with a nifty fisk. It seems that the offensive, bigoted ***** Tony, not satisfied with calumniating people with opposing political views, decided to calumniate an entire group of people as "racists" based on what region of the country they live in. Michael D. is exactly right in his assessment: Tony's commentary - as usual - is "unsupported by facts and buoyed by his prejudiced assertions". But WE'RE the bigots.

So what's going on here (apart from the usual asshackery we've come to expect from uber-partisan Catholics like Winters and Tony A)? Two things that are inter-related. This is an effort at both (1) delegitimization and (2) intimidation.

First off, this is an attempt to delegitimize the opposition by ascribing to them motives that are detestible. The opposition is not simply wrong, or mistaken, or misguided. They are illegitimate. They are contemptible. They are miscreants. They are evil. There can be no good faith or common ground with these folks because they are racists who oppose the President for no other reason than that they hate him on the basis of his skin color.

Closely correlated with this delegitimization effort is the attempt at intimidation. The Catholic left knows that there are a group of Catholics who are uneasy with the American right, but who have formed political coalitions with the right over social, cultural, and moral issues. These Catholics, who might otherwise be politically closer to Democrats, feel like the Democrat Party has abandoned them because of its secularist anti-life, anti-marriage agenda that is hostile to the place of faith in the public square. Chief among these Catholics are the U.S. Bishops.

Now, as we've learned over the past few weeks, the Bishops are much more comfortable rubbing elbows with the political elites on the left than they are associating with the riff-raff who take the Bishops at their word regarding the seriousness of abortion. And the Bishops certainly don't want to be associated with the broader aspects of the right-wing agenda. So, if the effort to paint those opposing the President as "racists" were to be successful, the Bishops (and many Catholics who have opposed the President on life issues) would feel compelled to sever ties with their pro-life allies on the right. I mean, what Catholic - especially a Catholic Bishop - wants to be seen as associating with "racists"?

That's what's going on here: this is, pure and simple, an effort to delegitimize the opposition as evil and irrational, and thereby intimidate the Bishops and other Catholics into abandoning their "racist" pro-life allies on the right and supporting the President's agenda.


UPDATE (17 September)
Deal Hudson has some thoughts on this topic today: "Playing the Race Card and the Sin of Slander"

... The same questions should be asked of the growing chorus of Obama supporters who are playing the race card. Calling someone a racist is a serious matter, and anyone making the accusation should have substantial evidence to back it up. Otherwise, they are merely slandering an opponent for political purposes and should be ashamed of themselves.

One Catholic commentator making this accusation is Michael Sean Winters, who wrote at the America magazine blog about the demonstration in Washington, D.C., last Saturday:

But, watching and listening, it is difficult not to conclude that the strong sense of grievance, the idea that "Nobody's standing up for us!" as one man from Tennessee put it, was not only to restore certain constitutional principles, but the social hierarchy that prevailed in earlier times, a hierarchy that kept blacks on the lowest rungs of society.

Just how is it "difficult not to conclude" these people are racists, simply because they don't feel represented by either the Obama White House or the Democratic majority in Congress? Applying Occam's razor, the most obvious explanation is this: These are conservative Americans who are disgusted with an administration spending their tax dollars to assume control of one industry after another, with the nation's medical care hanging in the balance.

Were there some racists among the masses of people on the National Mall last Saturday? Almost certainly. But to claim racial discontent was integral to the overall complaint about a lack of political representation is pure speculation, damaging to the reputation of the accuser and the accused.

Winters revisited the question of racism today, acknowledging, "Obviously, not all opposition to Obama is racist." This means, of course, some of it is, but that was not the accusation he originally made. He adds, "Most of those who oppose the President are not racists," which leads me to ask, "What does Winters mean by most?" If 49 percent of the population oppose Obama -- and that's a lot of people -- are they racists?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Slander is an offense against the truth" (2475). The Catechism also reminds Catholics that we should respect the "reputation of persons" and avoid "every attitude or word likely to cause them unjust injury" (2477).

These charges of racism against critics of the Obama administration by the Democrats in Congress and others are slanderous. Why? Because Jimmy Carter and Michael Sean Winters have no knowledge of the people they have labeled, beyond what they have seen on television.

Need I repeat that such a serious charge as racism should be based upon presentable evidence, or what the Catechism calls an "objectively valid reason"? In fact, the Catechism goes even further and counsels Catholics that, "to avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way" (2478)...

[More]

(emphasis added)

"If Obama’s lost Cambridge, [Massachusetts,] ... he’s lost America!" [UPDATED]

Read in the comments to this Ed Morrissey post.


UPDATE
The Cranky Conservative offers his take on "Our stupid president".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Meet the Police Officer the President Accused (on National TV) of Being a "Stupid" Racist [UPDATED]

Meet the Police Officer the President Accused (on National TV) of Being a "Stupid" Racist [UPDATED]

Police Seargent James Crowley:

... But people who know Crowley were skeptical or outright dismissive of allegations of racism. A prominent defense lawyer, a neighbor of Crowley’s, his union, and fellow officers described him yesterday as a respected, and respectful, officer who performs his job well and has led his colleagues in diversity training.

“He’s evenhanded and, in the cases I’ve had with him, he’s been very much in control and very professional,’’ said Joseph W. Monahan III, a criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge and former Middlesex County prosecutor. Monahan has represented several defendants arrested by Crowley for domestic assaults and for drunken driving.

Crowley himself, speaking to the Globe yesterday and again last night in Natick, said he will not apologize and asserted, “I am not a racist.’’

Crowley’s police union issued a statement saying it had reviewed the arrest of Gates and expressed “full and unqualified support’’ for his actions.

“Sergeant Crowley is a highly respected veteran supervisor with a distinguished record in the Cambridge Police Department,’’ said the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. “His actions at the scene of this matter were consistent with his training, with the informed policies and practices of the Department, and with applicable legal standards.’’

[More]

But it wasn't just cops Obama attacked in his press conference last night. He also accused pediatricians of being motivated by greed to perform unnecessary tonsilectomies on kids:

Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

Nice. Glad to see our President "bringing us together".


UPDATE
Ed Morrissey has more on ths story.

Methinks this misstep is going to cost dear leader a few popularity points. The voters of America don't recall seeing Al Sharpton's name on the ballot when they voted last November.


UPDATE #2
So, let me see if I have this straight: it took Obama 2 months to decide what kind of dog to get for his kids; he's been in D.C. for 6 months and still can't decide which church to attend; but he thinks we should pass a health care bill that will nationalize health insurance for the entire country without the citizens having any information about what it means for us (including whether abortion will be federally funded) after a mere 2 weeks of "debate"; and, on the basis of his admittedly "not having all the facts", he feels free to impugn - on national TV - the cops who arrested Prof. Gates as "stupid" racists.

I suppose we should take comfort in the fact that he's taking time to think through the important things.

Congressman Chris Smith: Mrs. Clinton, Choose Either Our Lady of Guadalupe or Margaret Sanger

From Catholic News Agency:

Washington D.C., Apr 2, 2009 / 01:25 pm (CNA).- In an impassionate address to the House of Representatives on Tuesday, Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ,) argued that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the speech delivered immediately after, in Houston, Texas, during Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award were completely inexcusable.

Smith said that Clinton’s visit to the Catholic Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, where she presented a bouquet of flowers on behalf of the American people, was “a very nice gesture.”

But the gesture was at odds with her speech while receiving the Margaret Sanger Award.

“In her remarks, Secretary Clinton said she was ‘in awe’ --I repeat, ‘in awe’-- of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.”

“To our distinguished Secretary of State, I respectfully ask: Are you kidding? In ‘awe’ of Margaret Sanger, who said in 1921, ‘Eugenics…is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems’ and who also said in 1922, ‘The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it’?” asked Congressman Smith.

He went on to say that Secretary Clinton in her speech said that Margaret Sanger's “life and leadership” was “one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.”

“Mr. Speaker, transformational, yes. But not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, a person of color, vulnerable, or among the many so-called undesirables who Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race.”

According to the New Jersey Representative, “the juxtaposition of last week's two very public events in Mexico City and in Houston bring into sharp focus two huge and irreconcilable world views.”

“On the one hand, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe has for five centuries brought a message of hope, faith, peace, reconciliation and protection for the weakest, most vulnerable among us. On the other hand, each year, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood kills approximately 300,000 unborn baby girls and boys in their abortion clinics scattered throughout the United States,” he added.

After briefly narrating the story of the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Smith continued: “last Thursday, Hillary Clinton visited the shrine. On Friday, she paid homage to Planned Parenthood and to Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a self-described pro-abortionist eugenist and a racist who considered charity care for impoverished, disenfranchised women, including women of color, especially pregnant women, to be ‘cruel’.”

Smith extensively quoted little known, terrifying passages of Sanger’s writings, loaded with racism and contempt for the poor.

“The most serious charge that can be brought against modern benevolence is that it encourages, and I say this again, the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents, and dependents,” was one of Sanger’s statement quoted by the NJ representative.

“Which begs the question, Mr. Speaker. Is our Secretary of State unaware of Margaret Sanger’s inhumane beliefs? Was she not briefed on Margaret Sanger’s cruel and reckless disregard for poor, pregnant women? Respectfully, Secretary Clinton should at a minimum return the Sanger award.”

“More importantly,” continued Smith “Congress and the White House must at long last take a long, hard, second look at the multimillion, almost billion, dollar corporation called Planned Parenthood – Child Abuse Incorporated.”

“There is nothing whatsoever compassionate, benevolent, ennobling, benign, or empowering about abortion. It is a violation of a child's fundamental human rights.”

“I strongly urge my colleagues to take that second look at Planned Parenthood. It is time to respect the value and the dignity of all human life,” he concluded.

Don McClarey on The Gettysburg Address

At American Catholic.

Bill Donohue: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke" [UPDATED]

The Catholic League's Bill Donohue offers up this parody of certain prominent pro-life Obamaphiles:

I believe racism is an unspeakable evil, yet I support David Duke, who is pro-racism. I do not support him because he is pro-racism, but in spite of it. Is that a proper choice for a committed Catholic?

As someone who has worked with minorities all his life, I answer with a resounding yes. Despite what some say, the list of what the Catholic Church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with racism. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.

Duke's support for racist rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that racism is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the racism battle -- permanently. A vote for Duke's opponent does not guarantee the end of racism in America. Not even close.

[More]

UPDATE
Deal Hudson writes that one prominent pro-life Obama supporter, Dr. Nicholas Cafardi, has resigned from his position on the Board of Directors at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Let me say that I think this is an unfortunate development, and I don't believe anyone should be gloating over this result. While I disagree with Dr. Cafardi's and Prof. Kmiec's decisions to publicly support Sen. Obama, I don't think it merits their resigning their positions from prominent Catholic institutions or being denied Communion or anything of that sort.

Let me reiterate what I've said here many times: I DO NOT think it is immoral or objectively evil or putting one's soul in jeopardy for someone to make the prudential determination to cast one's vote in favor of a "pro-choice" candidate for office, as long as one is voting for such a candidate despite that candidate's views on abortion. I am uncomforable with those who proclaim that such a vote is forbidden. I believe that a Catholic should not vote for such a candidate, but it goes too far to say that one may not do so.

The thrust of my diatribes against Prof. Kmiec and Prof. Gaillardetz (and, by extension, Dr. Cafardi - who I haven't addressed on this blog until now) is NOT that they have decided to support Sen. Obama, but rather that they've twisted the pro-life argument and the teachings of the U.S. Bishops on the matter of abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade in order to come up with a pro-life reason for their doing so. I believe their efforts risk misleading people about what the Church teaches on this matter, and I vociferously object to that.

I'll say it again: if you believe that there are "prorportionate and/or truly grave moral reasons" for supporting a "pro-choice" candidate despite that candidate's position on abortion, then, by all means, vote for that candidate. But don't pretend that your reasons for doing so are in any way to advance the ball on reducing abortion.

"Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition

The next time a Catholic tries to argue that they support the Democrat Party's "strategy" for allegedly reducing the so-called "need" and incidence of abortion, but which leaves in place a legal regime that denies protection for the unborn in law (and, in fact, calls for the evisceration of what few legal protections exist via passage of the Freedom of Choice Act), point out that by their reasoning the "separate but equal" reading of the Equal Protection Clause would be just fine.

Recall that in the days before Brown v. Board of Education, the rule of "separate but equal" promulgated in Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land. The Plessy case posited that segregated public accomodations on the basis of racial differences were constitutionally licit as long as the accomodations were "equal".

Now, in reality, the accomodations were never equal. Whites had better schools, had better seats on the train, had nicer public bathroom facilities. The reason isn't hard to grasp: a legal regime that enforced segregation on the basis of racial distinction - the requirement of "equal" accomodations notwithstanding - implicitly, if not explicity, had at its core a view of racial superiority for one set of people and racial inferiority for the other. And, in that climate, public and private resources were never going to spent to ensure equality of accomodations to those deemed inferior.

The same can be said of a legal regime that eliminates all legal protections for the unborn. You can talk a good game all you want about reducing the incidence of abortion, but as long as you vote for candidates who continue to posit that the right to life is wholly dependant upon whether that life is "convenient", and who will eliminate what few protections do exist for the unborn, and who will make public money available to pay for the decision to abort, you, by your vote, will contribute to a climate where the unborn are seen as something inferior and unworthy of legal protection.

Now, let's go back to the "separate but equal" example. Let's suppose that in Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court, rather than ordering integration of the public schools, had ordered true funding "equality" and that they had been able to enforce it. And let's suppose that, as a result, public education for black children did improve to such a level that there was true "equality" of results. Nevertheless, the segregation regime was left in place and set in stone, providing for separate but truly equal public accomodations. Would you be comfortable with that?

Isn't that, in essence, what the Democrat Party "abortion strategy" calls for? Let's assume, for a moment, that those supporting the "strategy" are correct (which, as Mark Stricherz points out, they clearly are not) , and that their rosy scenario plays out. We get a reduction in the incidence of abortion. How much? My guess is that even in their rosiest of scenarios it would be minimal, but let's assume, for the sake of argument, that abortions are reduced 20%. That would be significant, but we'd still have upwards of 800,000 abortions performed every year in America. And worse, we'd still have an abortion regime left in place and set in stone (perhaps for generations) that views the legal status of the unborn as unworthy of legal protection. I'm certainly not comfortable with that.

The "separate but equal" regime of Plessy was wrong because implicit in its premise is the legal inferiority of blacks. Policies providing them "equality" of results weren't going to change that. The abortion regime of Roe is wrong because implicit in its premise is the legal inferiority of the unborn, deemed unworthy of legal protection. Policies claiming to reduce the incidence of abortion while leaving Roe in place aren't going to change that.

Ohio Democrats: You're "Racist" If You Don't Vote for Sen. Obama

How NOT to win friends and influence people.

Sen. Obama Demeans Justice Thomas' Intellect [UPDATED]

Another reason NOT to vote for Sen. Obama: he's a poor judge of legal talent. When a presidential candidate believes that the most brilliant legal mind and jurisprudential thinker (whether you agree with his jurisprudence or not) on the Supreme Court is not “a strong enough jurist or legal thinker”, then said candidate cannot be trusted to nominate qualified jurists.

The Wall Street Journal opines:

Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

(emphasis added)

See also Kathryn Jean Lopez's "Doubting Thomas: What exactly is Barack Obama’s problem with Clarence Thomas?":

... Obama responded: “I don’t think he was an exp . . . ” — he then caught himself — “a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”

Although a choice sure to fire up his Left base, it was a curious answer, if you consider the record — even beyond the fact that Obama didn’t believe Thomas was qualified to be one of nine in the Supreme Court when Obama’s not quite uber-experienced to be one of one in the White House.

***
If only left-wing Supreme Court Enemy #1 Justice Thomas were more open to legislating from the judicial bench. Perhaps if he were comfortable with the judicial branch making up laws establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or legal rights for partial-birth abortion or for foreign terrorists he would be the ideal justice for a Barack Obama administration.

Barack Obama’s answer to Rick Warren’s Supreme Court question was telling. Elections matter. As one politico with experience on Supreme Court fights put it Saturday night, “regardless of what Obama might say about particular decisions, Obama’s justices would not only presumably make up these new rights — they would strip us of our Second Amendment rights while giving child rapists more rights and taking away the rights of the people through their legislators to make these important decisions.” But don’t expect Barack Obama to address any of those actual details.

My Comments:
Sen. Obama's despicable comments about a man - Justice Thomas - who happens to be one of my personal heroes, and which comments play into the racist mantra that black conservatives are lacking in intellect, proves Sen. Obama to be an even bigger low-life partisan hack than for which I had originally given him credit.

"Post-partisan" my arse!


UPDATE
Conservatives Slam Obama’s Answer About Supreme Court Justices at Saddleback Forum:

... “Apparently, Obama can do no better than to recycle discredited statements of Harry Reid when it comes to Justice Thomas. Like other liberal elites, Obama cannot stand it when a black man strays from the ideological plantation and refuses to implement liberal policies through the courts. But Obama will never point out any intellectual deficiencies in Justice Thomas’s work, because he can’t. Justice Thomas’s opinions consistently reveal faithfulness to the Constitution, judicial modesty and deference to the will of the people in our representative democracy. That is opposed to everything that Obama and the liberals are trying to do in grabbing power from the people and giving it to the courts...”

***
“Obama’s answer about the three wisest people in his life, upon whom he would rely heavily in his administration, also sheds light on the way he would choose Supreme Court Justices. Obama said he would consult his grandmother, his wife, and Ted Kennedy. This is unlikely to yield the highest quality judicial nominees who understand the Constitution and the role of judges in our constitutional democracy...”

(emphasis added)