Tuesday, October 16, 2007
(yawn) Law Professor critical of Justice Thomas
I swear, the more Op-Eds I read that are written by law professors, the more apparent it becomes that the best and the brightest are not teaching law school.
In Sunday’s Post, Georgetown law professor Emma Jordan writes in reaction to Justice Thomas’s new book, My Grandfather’s Son. Predictably she is not impressed with the good Justice. Her argument seems to be that since Justice Thomas mentioned lynchings at his hearings, he should consider lynchings in his decisions on the Court.
She even makes this bold prediction: “If the court had taken notice of past racial violence, it would have reached the opposite conclusion in the schools case.” For Clarence Thomas, Lynching Is Personal. Only.
What she doesn’t say is why. Why would (and why should) recounting racial violence from 60-odd years ago (as she does with reference to a certain Kentucky-based study) inform Court decisions – particularly one about Seattle Washington - about school systems that do not let certain students – based on their skin color - go to a school they otherwise would.
Stranger still is this line:
“Residential segregation today provides the foundation for school resegregation and the attendant inequality of public schools.”
Residential segregation?? Is she talking about Prince George’s County here in Maryland? Is she talking about the importance of New Orleans remaining a “chocolate city”? Justice Thomas has long been outspoken about his rejection of the idea that minority-majority schools are implicitly a lesser quality (and Thomas Sowell has excellent research on this). Why does she seemingly assume that such schools have an “attendant inequality”?
I wonder if she feels that way about where she got her law degree – Howard University.
In Sunday’s Post, Georgetown law professor Emma Jordan writes in reaction to Justice Thomas’s new book, My Grandfather’s Son. Predictably she is not impressed with the good Justice. Her argument seems to be that since Justice Thomas mentioned lynchings at his hearings, he should consider lynchings in his decisions on the Court.
She even makes this bold prediction: “If the court had taken notice of past racial violence, it would have reached the opposite conclusion in the schools case.” For Clarence Thomas, Lynching Is Personal. Only.
What she doesn’t say is why. Why would (and why should) recounting racial violence from 60-odd years ago (as she does with reference to a certain Kentucky-based study) inform Court decisions – particularly one about Seattle Washington - about school systems that do not let certain students – based on their skin color - go to a school they otherwise would.
Stranger still is this line:
“Residential segregation today provides the foundation for school resegregation and the attendant inequality of public schools.”
Residential segregation?? Is she talking about Prince George’s County here in Maryland? Is she talking about the importance of New Orleans remaining a “chocolate city”? Justice Thomas has long been outspoken about his rejection of the idea that minority-majority schools are implicitly a lesser quality (and Thomas Sowell has excellent research on this). Why does she seemingly assume that such schools have an “attendant inequality”?
I wonder if she feels that way about where she got her law degree – Howard University.
Comments:
<< Home
Justice Thomas is a target because no black person can be a conservative, in the minds of people like Prof. Jordan and many others.
Especially because this Justice holds the seat that once belonged to Thurgood Marshall, he is viewed as a traitor to his race.
That kind of politics will never cease, as long as the left wing black establishment can claim to speak for the entire African-American population of this nation.
Post a Comment
Especially because this Justice holds the seat that once belonged to Thurgood Marshall, he is viewed as a traitor to his race.
That kind of politics will never cease, as long as the left wing black establishment can claim to speak for the entire African-American population of this nation.
<< Home
