If a liberal were to attack Justice Clarence Thomas on the grounds that he's black, we would all go crazy.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I probably would have voted against Justice Thomas, and, and, and I've been disappointed by what Justice Roberts has done.
If you think about the way the hearings were structured, the hearings were really about Thomas' race and my gender.
Women ought to feel a peculiar sympathy in the colored man's wrong, for, like him, she has been accused of mental inferiority, and denied the privileges of a liberal education.
Justice Scalia is predictable. He can be counted on to come down with a conservative opinion, and generally, to bring Justice Clarence Thomas with him.
I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.
'The Cosby Show' - no one thought there's doctors and lawyers who are married and live in brownstones! Back then no one would have thought we would have an African-American president. They would have laughed in your face.
All right-wing antigovernment rage in America bears a racial component, because liberalism is understood, consciously or unconsciously, as the ideology that steals from hard-working, taxpaying whites and gives the spoils to indolent, grasping blacks.
Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism.
It is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead the need for thoughtful legal reasoning.
When Thurgood Marshall became a lawyer, race relations in the United States were particularly bad.
No opposing quotes found.