Well first the idiocy that could only be seen as bigoted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and now the Senate Democrats put former Ku Klux Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd in charge of efforts to derail the confirmation of Secretary of State-nominee Condoleezza Rice.

If you have forgotten who Reid is;
http://www.thedumb.com/forums/showt...&highlight=Reid

We already showed where Reid's comment had NO basis in fact or reality. Now in a softball interview with "This Week With George Stephanopoulos", he back tracts and says he should have just said " I voted against Judge Thomas when he was going to be confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Why in the world would I ever vote for that man for chief justice? And probably that's all I should have said."
So he gets the opinion sides wrong and Scalia specifically,then he tries a weasel out by siting Mitchell v. U.S. (1999) as an example.Now here he actually looked and yes ,Thomas and scalia did write dissents{http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-7541}.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...7-7541#section3
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...7-7541#section2

Here is part of Thomas's ;
Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion persuasively demonstrates that this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), lacks foundation in the Constitution's text, history, or logic. The vacuousness of Griffin supplies "cause enough to resist its extension." Ante, at 7. And, in my view, it also illustrates that Griffin and its progeny, including Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981), should be reexamined. . . .

We have previously recognized that stare decisis is "at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment or by overruling our prior decisions." Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 235 (1997). Given their indefensible foundations, I would be willing to reconsider Griffin and Carter in the appropriate case. For purposes of this case, which asks only whether the principle established in Griffin should be extended, I agree that the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit a sentencer from drawing an adverse inference from a defendant's failure to testify and, therefore, join Justice Scalia's dissent.

Well there is nothing wrong with that one either. Now Reid is switching to the idea that Thomas wants to turn back precedent. Well thats hardly anything new. The court has don that many a time before.Its not a novelty of Thomas by any stretch of the imagination.

juries hardly care at all for the idea of precedent and even the S.C. has it as a weak idea;
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) This case based on Roe v. Wade upheld the right to abortion (1973); and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overturned the finding in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) that laws against consensual homosexual sodomy were constitutional.In one or the other just about every justice voted away precedent in one of these cases.Then we must ask Reid about Brown v. Board of Education.Was this also a precedent reversing "embarrassment" to the court?

While you ponder that , lets look at Reid's latest verbal duffus moment{if he were Bush the pres would be all over this}.

Reid now says "I should have said: I voted against him the first time and I'm gonna vote against him the second time if he comes up." Well lets look back to Sept. 25, 1991. Shaun McKinnon wrote an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal titled "Reid, Bryan OK Thomas for Top Court":

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., also added his vote [for Thomas], saying he has "found no compelling reason for the Senate to reject the nomination of Judge Thomas," named by President Bush earlier this year to fill the seat of retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall. . . .

Reid said he respected the views of groups who opposed Thomas, but "after a thorough airing of opinions in the committee, no evidence emerged demonstrating a lack of capability in the president's nominee."

Thomas drew fire for his skeptical views toward affirmative action and "natural law," and for refusing to disclose his opinion on abortion. Thomas could become the swing vote to weaken or overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortions.

But Reid said Thomas' personal views should not be the primary issue.

"The Senate's constitutional role should be to reject a presidential nominee on the basis of qualifications, not political ideology," said Reid, who met with Thomas in the days before the confirmation hearings.

"The credentials of Judge Thomas to sit on the court passed intense scrutiny."

So is Reid fibbing on nation T.V. about his vote for Thomas?Well not exactly. Now heres where its gets erie.Look at the role call vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00220
Reid did vote no. But that was before he would vote yes.SOUND FAMILIAR.

He voted for Thomas before he voted against him. Maybe that helps your recent memory.See between Sept. 25, 1991, and Oct. 15,is when the anita Hill slander was leaked.The charges were unsubstantiated and at best, trivial anyway as set by Democrat precedent subsequently (cf Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick).

Thomas described this mass hysteria himself;
It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you.

So only 3 week minded dems voted no and Reid was one on what the dems themselves had set as trivial matters.

So we have Reid ,the new leader of the Senate Dem minority going way out of the way to insult the only Black member of the court and he sites his own 1991 vote despite the fact he supported him totally until the Dems pulled out the old war plan of politics of personal destruction on Thomas.


All this to say what?

These are the men the Dems have chosen as leaders.One for the minority in the Senate and the other to to lead the derailing of the first Black secretary of state and one of these "leaders" is a former Ku Klux Klansman .

What does that tell us about their character?

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Let's just hope that the black Democrats who have continually supported this group for decades will soon wake up and smell the coffee. I think many already are.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Where are they gonna go, to the Republicans? Ha!

Libertarians.
HA!!.

elietist ....bah!!!

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

<----- Went to the Libertarians

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Headed there myself....

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

You mean like homosexuals cant go to the Republicans? heh heh

"Where are they gonna go, to the Republicans? Ha!"

Eventually they will understand how democrats use them and will leave the plantation.... Thanks to NCLB and the Bush taxcuts, more and more african-americans are becoming more educated and less dependant on government...


You lefties should be quaking in your boots right now..... but you are too much of an elitist's paradise to comprehend that the lowly black folks would ever comprehend how you liars have exploited them for political gain.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

Or soccer moms.

Catz

__________________
I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls.