|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 Grutter v. Bollinger -- 大法官Thomas的困境 |
 |
梦
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
上篇预测说到O'Connor是唯一的变数，其实最高院唯一的黑人大法官Thomas 这回估计也头疼得紧—— 究竟是保持一贯的保守立场，与Scalia站到一块，还是如下文所示，会抓住这唯一的机会站到自己的同胞一边，给自己一次机会？
In this sense, there's gonna be two swing votes instead of only one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence's Last Chance
Michigan Case Provides Last Opportunity for Redemption
By Walter Fields
Publisher, The NorthStar Network
In the most important case directly affecting Black Americans to reach the United States Supreme Court in decades, Justice Clarence Thomas, the only Black justice on the nation’s highest court, has one last chance to redeem himself in the eyes of most Black Americans. After years of seeking shelter from race consciousness, Thomas is now confronted with a case that takes the issue of race, law and public policy head-on. With no place to hide, not even behind the robe of his alter-ego Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas will have to show his cards in full view of an already skeptical Black community.
This is the moment of truth for a jurist whose nomination to the Court was engulfed in controversy over allegations of sexual misconduct toward a Black staff member, Anita Hill, when Thomas served as the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). His nomination was met with stiff opposition by many Blacks, who feared his conservative orientation would undermine decades of hard fought civil rights gains in the federal courts. Ironically, his placement on the Supreme Court was an act of tokenism, given his paper-thin judicial record on the federal bench. It was clear at the time, and remains so, that the objective was to simply put a conservative in Black face on the high court. Thomas’ nomination flew in the face of claims of race neutrality by the very conservatives who are now seeking to dismantle affirmative action.
It was significant that the Court heard the University of Michigan case on the eve of the birthday of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. There is no other justice in the Court’s history who better represents the justification for affirmative action. Marshall, denied admission to the University of Maryland Law School due to his race, found refuge at Howard University Law School. He not only succeeded in his professional career, he redefined the law as it related to the constitutional rights of Black Americans. Had it not been for President Lyndon Johnson, an unlikely ally given his southern roots, we would have been denied the benefit of Marshall’s keen sense of the law and commitment to equity. And that would have been the nation’s loss.
We never expected Clarence Thomas to fill Justice Marshall’s shoes. We knew that was not possible. We also accepted the fact that Thomas feels some degree of allegiance to his conservative benefactors. Since his arrival at the Supreme Court we have accepted the fact that this Black man was no Thurgood Marshall. Our expectations of Justice Thomas have been so low that we never look to him to take an activist position on issues of equity and justice. We understand that the preservation of our rights is not his priority. Our threshold for Thomas has been, and continues to be, to “do no harm”.
The University of Michigan cases, however, significantly raises the stakes. This is our “line in the sand” for Justice Thomas. The slate is now clean. What transpired before Grutter v. Bollinger can be cast aside. It’s what’s on the table now that counts. Court observers anticipate that this case may result in a 5-4 decision, either way, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor casting the pivotal vote. Clearly, her questioning during Tuesday’s hearing suggests that she is taking a hard look at the questions being raised in Grutter. We are hopeful that she will be guided in her deliberations by the opinion of Justice Lewis Powell in Bakke. Powell, who befriended O’Connor on the bench, suggested that schools had a compelling interest in achieving racial diversity and that race could be used as a factor in considering applicants for admission. We hope Powell’s viewpoint carries the day.
It is not lost upon us that Clarence Thomas, himself the beneficiary of affirmative action as a student at Holy Cross and Yale Law School, and the only Black on the Court, may actually side with those who are against us. The man who claimed he was the victim of a “high-tech lynching” when being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, may be thinking about tightening the noose around the necks of generations of Black and brown children.
This is the moment of truth for Justice Thomas. There are two clear sides here. The choices are quite evident. He can either stand up for Black people in this nation by reaffirming our nation’s commitment to equity or stand against us by siding with a racist perspective, backed by his conservative patrons, that seeks to preserve white privilege. Grutter is not about quotas. The case is not about so-called reverse discrimination. And it is not about a housewife having her place, as if she was so entitled, at the University of Michigan Law School taken by an undeserving or unqualified Black applicant. At its heart Grutter v. Bollinger is about the maintenance of white power in America through the control of institutions. It is that simple. This is the ultimate racial identity test for Clarence Thomas.
If Justice Thomas goes against the University of Michigan he will be past the point of redemption. There will be no coming back at that point. If he is on the wrong side on this decision he will only have white conservatives, and some of their Black minions, to embrace him. He will be persona non grata, for he will have cast his fate with those who wish to do harm to our children. The choice is his to make.
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
