If we truly lived in a democratic nation, and the final arbiters of justice in the nation were nine learned justices--a Supreme Court, if you will--then it would surely be expected that those justices to be fair and impartial, or at least as impartial as a human being could be. We wouldn't, for instance, allow anyone to get on the court who openly admitted his or her hatred towards certain ideologies, and surely if someone clearly prejudiced did somehow land on this court, steps for removal would immediately be taken.
Of course, this isn't a democratic nation.
Clarence Thomas has, God help us, published a memoir, and even though he won his battle against Anita Hill--he's on the court, after all--he can't let it go, not only dismissing Hill's claims of sexual harrassment, but spinning a conspiracy theory that she was just a front for abortion groups determined to keep him off the court.
As a black kid in the south, the KKK may have been scary, but not as scary as liberals: "My worst fears had come to pass not in georgia, but in Wasington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony."
So members of congress who rightly questioned his suitability for the court are worse than the Klan, according to Thomas. You might think that kind of trivializes all those black corpses hanging from trees, but remember, in the world according to Clarence, race doesn't matter. That's why it's okey-doaks to abolish affirmitive action; just because Thomas was himself a beneficiary doesn't mean African-Americans today should be allowed the advantages he had. He was black when he needed to be, now he's color-blind. A miracle!
Thomas is a douchebag, no question. What does it say for the rest of us, though, that we let this guy--clearly closed-minded, hostile to change, openly contempuous of his own race--set the laws of the land? It's obvious what's wrong with him...but what's wrong with us?
