Skip to content

Instapundit » Blog Archive » I MEANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ LAME HIT PIECE ON CLARENCE THOMAS, but fellow law…

June 20, 2011

I MEANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ LAME HIT PIECE ON CLARENCE THOMAS, but fellow lawprof Ann Althouse got there first. Bottom line:

The constitutional check on a Supreme Court Justice is impeachment. Picture Congress going after Thomas for playing some background role in preserving a valuable black history site.

In short: Put up or shut up, schmucks. But of course, the New York Times piece isn’t really about ethics. It’s battlespace preparation for the Supreme Court’s healthcare vote. The problem for the Times is that Thomas doesn’t care what the New York Times thinks. Which means this is more about preparing a narrative of failure for ObamaCare — It was struck down by evil corrupt conservative judges. I think they’re going to be kept quite busy constructing failure narratives over the next couple of years.

via Instapundit » Blog Archive » I MEANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ LAME HIT PIECE ON CLARENCE THOMAS, but fellow law….

Yep.

Advertisements
One Comment
  1. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 20, 2011 9:28 am

    From this point: “It’s battlespace…” the rant becomes stupid. Sorry, but Thomas is one of the biggest wastes of space on the SC bench evah!! He has spoken like 5 words since becoming a justice, writes no compelling arguments or decisions, adds nothing to the Court and can’t even be called a “thinker”. At least Scalia has credibility and intellectual consistency.

    But the “battlefield”?? Bullcrap. Which orifice does he pull that out of?!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: