Shortcuts

Connect with us on Facebook!
Subscribe.
[Feeds & Readers]
Follow us on Twitter!

Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!

« Question about the bailout | Main | New Media is Good for Youth - Like eVitamins »


Clarence Thomas vs. Barack Obama

By Zola Jones
December 4, 2008

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..."
Many of us are still reeling in disgust over the Supreme Court's inappropriate interference in the Presidential election in 2000. Most of us continue to believe that the judiciary branch had no business crowning King George W. Bush as our president. We've suffered (barely survived) through the eight years hence.

What now? Supreme Court Justice (and right wing zealot) Clarence Thomas just can't keep his hands off of our elections. This from Afro-American:

In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

One of our fellow DNCC bloggers, African American Political Pundit, fills in more detail:

Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.
Legions of anti-Obama bloggers are so convinced he was born in Kenya that they’ve filed more than a dozen lawsuits nationwide. According to the Chicago Tribune,
Legal experts say the appeal has little chance of succeeding, despite appearing on the court's schedule. Legal records show it is only the tip of an iceberg of nationwide efforts seeking to derail Obama's election over accusations that he either wasn't born a U.S. citizen or that he later renounced his citizenship in Indonesia.

The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.

Among those filing lawsuits is Alan Keyes (Republican), who lost to Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate race. Keyes' suit seeks to halt certification of votes in California. Another suit by a Kentucky man seeks to have a federal judge review Obama's original birth certificate, which Hawaiian officials say is locked in a state vault...

The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was referred by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.

Cheryl Contee (aka Jill Tubman) of the Jack and Jill Politics blog (aka A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics) expresses smoldering disgust for Justice Thomas' involvement:
Still I’m outraged — clearly Thomas is breaking protocol in order to make some sort of “statement” on his beliefs. Whatever those are. His instinct is always to punish the race whose mark he shares to please those who flatter him to his face and scorn him with ridicule behind his back. He’s a sad case of self-hatred indeed.
A simple Google search will turn up lots of rank right wing blogs that have glommed onto this battle. It appears that there really are people in the U.S. that believe that President-Elect Obama is a terrorist with fake birth records.

Well, I have no words of forgiveness for the Supremes' interference in the 2000 election. My family and friends have barely survived the years of destruction that came on its heels.

One of my (and my grandmother's) heroes is Anita Hill. I respect her so much for the way she stood up to Clarence Thomas over fifteen years ago. In those days when both sexism and racism were rampant, it took such courage for a woman - a black woman - to tell the world about the sexual harassment she had endured from Justice Thomas, a black man. In fact, l loved that she's still standing up to Clarence Thomas. In her op-ed in the New York Times last year, Anita Hill expressed her continuing lack of respect for Justice Thomas,

Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in power. But that could change. Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice’s vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their rights.
What are we going to do with Clarence Thomas? Here he is, giving credence to the wingnuts who question Barack Obama's right to be president.

The blogger at ProgressPolitics (an African-American female living in the DC metro area) is pretty straightforward about how she sees Justice Thomas and the climate of hate we are living in:

I do believe that that is the last straw folks…..Thomas can no longer redeem himself in the eyes of anyone with a thimble full of brains. This is precisely why many argue that he is unqualified to hold the position that he currently holds on the United States Supreme Court.
Well, I have a different view. I see this as the dreariness of low hanging clouds. This is the muddled mess of political stuff. I say, bring it on!

I definitely welcome these inquiries into Barack Obama's past. Bring 'em on!

Of course Obama was born in the United States! Let's get President Obama's birthright settled once and for all - and, then, let's get on with the exasperating business of repairing everything has been broken by Justice Thomas, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and all the other greedy and selfish Right Wing Radicals.

I won't await the results of these silly lawsuits. You and I know that the Electoral College results will be certified and that Senator Barack Obama will be inaugurated.

I prefer to turn away from the tortuous road we have been on and look to our future.

I'd rather mull over more of Martin's words:

Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love...

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men...

When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.

Martin Luther King's Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1964


Comments (1)

bob hooper Author Profile Page:

Zola, if you're asking Thomas and SCOTUS to hear the case, I think I agree. The original action was brought in the Presidential primary by a Hillary Clinton supporter, Philip Berg. The opinion of many is that the charge is frivolous but Berg hoped it would "muddy the water" about Obama. A lower court did not rule on the evidence, but simply dismissed the charge because Berg "had no standing."

Either a lower appeals court should examine the evidence, or the Supreme Court should. If the evidence is as bogus as we suspect, the radical right will be further discredited.

I think I am correct in remembering that David Horowitz has called the charge embarrassing to those who make it.

Given the Constitutional stipulations for holding the office of the President, it is not an idle question.


Post your own comment

(To create links here or for style, you may wish to use HTML tags in your comments)


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links below to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the links below, you are directly helping to support this community website:

Want to browse more blogs? Try our table of contents to find articles under specific topics or headings. Or you might find interesting entries by looking through the complete archives too. Stay around awhile. We're glad you're here.


Browse the Blogs!

You are here!

This page contains only one entry posted to Everyday Citizen on December 4, 2008 5:21 PM.

The blog post previous to it is titled "Question about the bailout"

The post that follows this one is titled "New Media is Good for Youth - Like eVitamins"

Want to explore this site more?

Many more blog posts can be found on our Front Page or within our complete Archives.

Does a particular subject interest you?

You can easily search for blog posts under a specific topic by using our List of Categories.

Visit our friends!

Books You Might Like!

Notices & Policies

All of the Everyday Citizen authors are delighted you are here. We all hope that you come back often, leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

All of our contributing authors are credentialed by invitation only from the editor/publisher of EverydayCitizen.com. If you are visiting and are interested in writing here, please feel free to let us know.

For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. EverydayCitizen.com, The Everyday Citizen, everydaycitizens.com, and Everyday Citizen are trademarked names.

Each of the authors here retain their own copyrights for their original written works, original photographs and art works. Our authors also welcome and encourage readers to copy, reference or quote from the content of their blog postings, provided that the content reprints include obvious author or website attribution and/or links to their original postings, in accordance with this website's Creative Commons License.

Copyright, 2007-2011, All rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by each the respective authors of each of their own individual blogs and works, and then by the editor and publisher for any otherwise unreserved and all other content. Our editor primarily reviews blogs for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual blog posts on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors.