Justice Thomas has always been a failure, in my eyes, as one to speak IN ANY WAY on behalf of his people..., and we are his people.

This comes as a shock...unanticipated, and unreasoned.

Why now??

Consider:

In Clarence Thomas's gun rights opinion, race plays a major role
    
He hardly ever speaks during oral arguments, often appearing asleep on the bench. But in his written opinion Monday supporting the right to bear arms, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas roared to life.

Referring to the disarming of blacks during the post-Reconstruction era, Thomas wrote: "It was the 'duty' of white citizen 'patrols to search negro houses and other suspected places for firearms.' If they found any firearms, the patrols were to take the offending slave or free black 'to the nearest justice of the peace' whereupon he would be 'severely punished.' " Never again, Thomas says.

In a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto, he goes on to say, "Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence."

This was no muttering from an Uncle Tom, as many black people have accused him of being. His advocacy for black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X. He even cites the slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner -- implying that white America has long wanted to take guns away from black people out of fear that they would seek revenge for centuries of racial oppression.

Of course, Thomas's references to historic threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed if not for a resurgence of such groups in the year after Barack Obama's election as the nation's first black president.

And if their behavior turns as violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens, then Thomas will almost certainly go down in history as the nation's foremost black radical legal scholar.
ad_icon

Thomas, the only black justice, sided with the court's conservative majority in a 5 to 4 vote to give Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old black man from Chicago, the right to buy a handgun. In his lawsuit to repeal Chicago's restrictive handgun law, McDonald said he needed a gun to protect himself -- not from a white mob but from young black "gangbangers" who were terrorizing his suburban Chicago neighborhood.

Thomas agreed with McDonald, concluding that owning a gun is a fundamental part of a package of hard-won rights guaranteed to black people under the 14th Amendment. And just because some hooligans in Chicago or D.C. misuse firearms is no reason to give it up.

"In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood -- just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did -- that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty," Thomas wrote. "The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery."

Thomas made no mention of the black loss of life and liberty from handguns being wielded by other blacks. But he has made clear on other occasions that the problem is not that there are too many guns in the black community; the problem is too many criminals.

He dismissed the cogent gun-control arguments of his retiring colleague, John Paul Stevens, conjuring up the abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens instead: "When it was first proposed to free the slaves and arm the blacks, did not half the nation tremble?"

Let 'em quake, Thomas appears to be saying.

From Frederick Douglass, Thomas writes: " 'The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,' and that, until he does, 'the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.' "

Because of his conservative take on affirmative action and prisoners' rights, he has been cast as an uncouth African American who didn't understand black history, a dupe for arch conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and a man who couldn't think for himself.

What Thomas has created, however, is a legal defense of the Second Amendment so thoroughly original and starkly race-based that none of the white justices would even acknowledge it, as if it were some blank sheet crafted by an invisible man.

That ought to be a clue enough for black people that this document is at least worth a look. You may not agree with his conclusion, but there'll be no mistake about where he's coming from.

PEACE

Jim Chester
African Americans for African America http://iaanh2.org African American Pledge of Unity We stand, Together, after left alone in a land we never knew. We Bind ourselves, Together, with the blood and will of Those who have gone before. From the Bodies of our Ancestors thrown away, from the Pieces of Ourselves left to perish, We rise as One, a New Body in a New Land, a New People in a New Nation. Of Common Mind, Body, and Spirit, By Declaration of our Amalgamated Individual and Personal Authorities, We Are African America. © James Wesley Chester 2004; 2008 You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Original Post
JWC Reference:
What Thomas has created, however, is a legal defense of the Second Amendment so thoroughly original and starkly race-based that none of the white justices would even acknowledge it, as if it were some blank sheet crafted by an invisible man. That ought to be a clue enough for black people that this document is at least worth a look. You may not agree with his conclusion, but there'll be no mistake about where he's coming from.

Wow JWC, sorry to say, I'm just now seeing this!  Like you, I still have questions.  Like, if he is aware of the history, and the current millieu surrounding the election of an African-American president, why does he come down predictably hard right conservative in 99.9% of his decisions?  I had thought that he had a near psychotic level of denial and had deluded himself into believing in an alternate reality, but his reasonings in this particular decision weigh against that.
Reference:
why does he come down predictably hard right conservative in 99.9% of his decisions?

This decision is also hard right conservative; I'm just surprised that he used "the disarming of Blacks . . ." as an example or point of reference.
The advertizements here at the top of the page seem context sensitive and pretty well "targeted".


When I opened up this thread, I got an ad.for the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. 













I've never been able rationalize Justice Thomas either to myself, or anyone else.

His failure to African America, and America as a whole, in the 2000 Election with the Supreme Court selection of George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States was monumental.

I continue to say, 'All he had to do was abstain...for God's sake.

But....this is most recent utterance is good, in fact, great.

European America has its head 'under the covers', and peaking out to see anyone was paying attention.

African American Radio is all over it.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Reference:
......if he is aware of the history, and the current millieu surrounding the election of an African-American president, why does he come down predictably hard right conservative in 99.9% of his decisions?  I had thought that he had a near psychotic level of denial and had deluded himself into believing in an alternate reality, but his reasonings in this particular decision weigh against that.
Good point. I’ve never understood his affinity and support of hard right wing conservatism being that this particular group was at the core of denying and resisting laws that protect and give black people constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all American citizens. It’s kind of shocking to hear this much late revelation by Thomas given his history and support of an ideology that has been the  cornerstone of black grievance and oppression.
Hmmm ... he probably had some kind of inadvertent, accidental brush with a Black history book after ... what? ... 60-some-odd years of life?

Maybe it scared him straight! 
Hmmm ... he probably had some kind of inadvertent, accidental brush with a Black history book after ... what? ... 60-some-odd years of life?

Maybe it scared him straight!---EbonyRose

I is now occurring to me that Justice Thomas was finally...FINALLY...personally insulted.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×