https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1674472610690912256?s=20
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
At some point, a person can overcome the stigma of doubt.[/b] Thomas clearly has. Kentanji Brown Jackson never will. Neither did Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, today any degree, regardless of race, from an Ivy League university would leave me with a huge stigma of doubt. In the Transhauser Bush fiasco, the new marketing director has a Wharton MBA and the CEO has a Harvard MBA. Apparently understanding your product and your market was not in the curriculum, like internal controls was missing from the dazzler's mythical MBA program.
It's fun and appealing to presume that someone can overcome the stigma of doubt if they act, speak and behave as we wish. However, that's not how it works. You either got a break getting into and financing school, or you didn't. Most clear-thinking people assume that POC got the break and thus are AA babies. Nobody ever said they'll all prove to be fuck-ups later on. Just that they were gift-wrapped a chance denied others solely because of the accident of their race/ethnicity.
Charles Murray's work adds about a million tons of burden to the issue as well. Ask Bob.
Not sure what you are saying. I don't respect Thomas as a justice because he does what I want, I respect him because he is a Constitutional scholar and despite the personal blowback for his unpopular decisions with the so-called US elite, as a man of character he has remained steadfast as a supporter of the Constitution. Now compare that with Sandra Day O'Connor or John Roberts, a spineless sack of a man and possibly being blackmailed. When you read a Thomas opinion you don't get a recital of how the Euros feel about things, or the use of emanations and penumbras to create super rights out of pure cloth.
Yes, you are. IDC if you respect him, or why. I"ve already covered all that anyway. This is an AA discussion, not a deviation into all the things you care about and like. The "stigma of doubt" has nothing to do with what happens later or can be overcome by doing things that turn out to make you happy. The stigma is that you got there through means other than merit and stole a more deserving person's spot, which is dishonorable on its face, and casts a shadow over all that follows from it because of the taint on how you got your start.
In hindsight, he was the more deserving person and he stole no ones spot. You seem to denigrate a lifetime of character and intellectual achievement. You can have John Roberts.
JFC, it's like you can't or don't want to get through the most basic levels of reasoning. I'm not denigrating anybody, so put your delicate feelings away and grab your intellectual balls duck! And for Fuck's sake, read. the. post. Or just bow out with some shred of dignity. @haie is right about you guys.
In highsight? What are you magic or something? You have no idea of that at all and are now talking straight out of your butt hole. You don't know he was the most deserving, and you don't know that he didn't steal someone's spot. In fact, you even said the opposite (I'm obviously opposed to race based admissions and don't doubt that Thomas was an AA admit. [/i])
Are you keeping track of where we are here? This isn't revisionist history day Puddles. I'm sure quite a number of recipients of AA have done quite well with their chance; I know several of them personally. If you understand the issue, however, which you don't seem to very well, the ends don't justify the means here. The issue here is the practice of AA in the first instance. THAT is what the case is about. The majority didn't say, "but if it turns out the AA baby is a good guy, then retroactively it's ok." I get it: you want to save your favorite black jurist from the scorn. Sorry ese; it don't work that way in this barrio. You either have a consistent philosophy or you just cherry pick your way through everything.
So, let me get this straight: AA ok for me, but not for thee. That about sum up your philosophy?
