Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority? Both can be possible: he voted the right way, and he benefited from the thing he's striking down. Not a problem for me.
Also, lots of white people also grew up in abject poverty outside of Savanah and had no running water. The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that the physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB.
Also, the odds of CT not having benefited from AA are low, and you all know it. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure (well, somebody does, but not us), but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
H is against affirmative action but voted for Hillary who would have nominated judges who would keep it.
I voted for Trump who nominated judges who decided against it.
H voted for Biden who nominated Jackson who basically said
It's unconstitutional but still
It's so unfair to say that H votes like an idiot
The number of things that H says he doesn't support but are bedrock dem issues for dems that he votes for almost would lead you to believe he is lying.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
But Sotomayor grew up poor in a housing project in the Bronx, so it's unlikely that these preferences were the defining feature of her academic future.
Or whatever.
You have at least three AA action babies on the SCOTUS. They all had AA help. The odds one didn't are exceedingly low.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
At some point, a person can overcome the stigma of doubt. Thomas clearly has. Kentanji Brown Jackson never will. Neither did Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, today any degree, regardless of race, from an Ivy League university would leave me with a huge stigma of doubt. In the Transhauser Bush fiasco, the new marketing director has a Wharton MBA and the CEO has a Harvard MBA. Apparently understanding your product and your market was not in the curriculum, like internal controls was missing from the dazzler's mythical MBA program.
But Sotomayor grew up poor in a housing project in the Bronx, so it's unlikely that these preferences were the defining feature of her academic future.
Or whatever.
You have at least three AA action babies on the SCOTUS. They all had AA help. The odds one didn't are exceedingly low.
AA action babies. Nice.
She's at least famous for thinking there were 100,000 children hospitalized with covid, 'many of them on ventilators'.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
I totally get that and appreciate the point. The implied message of "this is a disaster" is that you, young black man, can't do it on your own without me helping you. It's horrible.
But his reasoning was garbage. He grew up poor with no running water; hence AA likely isn't what got him to Yale and the SCOTUS. GMAFB. That's new-level stupid. You can't cherry pick your AA babies and assume the one you like is the one who didn't need it, absent clear and definitive proof to the contrary. For Yale LS, I need to see a top 1% LSAT, and a near perfect GPA in a rigorous UG curriculum. Anything less than that, knowing what I know about AA programs, and I'm right in assuming you were given a helping hand.
Again, mind you, I have no problem with his vote. He's entitled to call the shot as it should be called, regardless of his personal circumstances. And Dyson is an idiot.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
I totally get that and appreciate the point. The implied message of "this is a disaster" is that you, young black man, can't do it on your own without me helping you. It's horrible.
But his reasoning was garbage. He grew up poor with no running water; hence AA likely isn't what got him to Yale and the SCOTUS. GMAFB. That's new-level stupid. You can't cherry pick your AA babies and assume the one you like is the one who didn't need it, absent clear and definitive proof to the contrary. For Yale LS, I need to see a top 1% LSAT, and a near perfect GPA in a rigorous UG curriculum. Anything less than that, knowing what I know about AA programs, and I'm right in assuming you were given a helping hand.
Again, mind you, I have no problem with his vote. He's entitled to call the shot as it should be called, regardless of his personal circumstances. And Dyson is an idiot.
I'm not sure how to react to reasonable, nuanced discussion in the Tug.
H is against affirmative action but voted for Hillary who would have nominated judges who would keep it.
I voted for Trump who nominated judges who decided against it.
H voted for Biden who nominated Jackson who basically said
It's unconstitutional but still
It's so unfair to say that H votes like an idiot
The number of things that H says he doesn't support but are bedrock dem issues for dems that he votes for almost would lead you to believe he is lying.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
I totally get that and appreciate the point. The implied message of "this is a disaster" is that you, young black man, can't do it on your own without me helping you. It's horrible.
But his reasoning was garbage. He grew up poor with no running water; hence AA likely isn't what got him to Yale and the SCOTUS. GMAFB. That's new-level stupid. You can't cherry pick your AA babies and assume the one you like is the one who didn't need it, absent clear and definitive proof to the contrary. For Yale LS, I need to see a top 1% LSAT, and a near perfect GPA in a rigorous UG curriculum. Anything less than that, knowing what I know about AA programs, and I'm right in assuming you were given a helping hand.
Again, mind you, I have no problem with his vote. He's entitled to call the shot as it should be called, regardless of his personal circumstances. And Dyson is an idiot.
I'm not sure how to react to reasonable, nuanced discussion in the Tug.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
I totally get that and appreciate the point. The implied message of "this is a disaster" is that you, young black man, can't do it on your own without me helping you. It's horrible.
But his reasoning was garbage. He grew up poor with no running water; hence AA likely isn't what got him to Yale and the SCOTUS. GMAFB. That's new-level stupid. You can't cherry pick your AA babies and assume the one you like is the one who didn't need it, absent clear and definitive proof to the contrary. For Yale LS, I need to see a top 1% LSAT, and a near perfect GPA in a rigorous UG curriculum. Anything less than that, knowing what I know about AA programs, and I'm right in assuming you were given a helping hand.
Again, mind you, I have no problem with his vote. He's entitled to call the shot as it should be called, regardless of his personal circumstances. And Dyson is an idiot.
I'm not sure how to react to reasonable, nuanced discussion in the Tug.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
I totally get that and appreciate the point. The implied message of "this is a disaster" is that you, young black man, can't do it on your own without me helping you. It's horrible.
But his reasoning was garbage. He grew up poor with no running water; hence AA likely isn't what got him to Yale and the SCOTUS. GMAFB. That's new-level stupid. You can't cherry pick your AA babies and assume the one you like is the one who didn't need it, absent clear and definitive proof to the contrary. For Yale LS, I need to see a top 1% LSAT, and a near perfect GPA in a rigorous UG curriculum. Anything less than that, knowing what I know about AA programs, and I'm right in assuming you were given a helping hand.
Again, mind you, I have no problem with his vote. He's entitled to call the shot as it should be called, regardless of his personal circumstances. And Dyson is an idiot.
I'm not sure how to react to reasonable, nuanced discussion in the Tug.
Fuck off
That kind of hostility would never play on the Whine and Cheese board.
But Sotomayor grew up poor in a housing project in the Bronx, so it's unlikely that these preferences were the defining feature of her academic future.
Or whatever.
You have at least three AA action babies on the SCOTUS. They all had AA help. The odds one didn't are exceedingly low.
I guess women are just going to have to sleep their way to the top like Kamela and Pelosi did.
But Sotomayor grew up poor in a housing project in the Bronx, so it's unlikely that these preferences were the defining feature of her academic future.
Or whatever.
You have at least three AA action babies on the SCOTUS. They all had AA help. The odds one didn't are exceedingly low.
I guess women are just going to have to sleep their way to the top like Kamela and Pelosi did.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
At some point, a person can overcome the stigma of doubt. Thomas clearly has. Kentanji Brown Jackson never will. Neither did Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, today any degree, regardless of race, from an Ivy League university would leave me with a huge stigma of doubt. In the Transhauser Bush fiasco, the new marketing director has a Wharton MBA and the CEO has a Harvard MBA. Apparently understanding your product and your market was not in the curriculum, like internal controls was missing from the dazzler's mythical MBA program.
It's fun and appealing to presume that someone can overcome the stigma of doubt if they act, speak and behave as we wish. However, that's not how it works. You either got a break getting into and financing school, or you didn't. Most clear-thinking people assume that POC got the break and thus are AA babies. Nobody ever said they'll all prove to be fuck-ups later on. Just that they were gift-wrapped a chance denied others solely because of the accident of their race/ethnicity.
Charles Murray's work adds about a million tons of burden to the issue as well. Ask Bob.
At highly selective liberal arts colleges, officials expect that the number of Black students could return to levels not seen since the 1960s. An amicus brief filed by the highly selective liberal arts schools, including Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams, said that “the percentage of Black students matriculating would drop from roughly 7.1 percent of the student body to 2.1 percent.”
The Gatekeepers are saying what Erica Marsh did, but with science!!!!!! Someone needs to apologize to Charles Murray for all the shit he's taken. @SFGbob Turns out the liberal elite agree with him.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
At some point, a person can overcome the stigma of doubt. Thomas clearly has. Kentanji Brown Jackson never will. Neither did Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, today any degree, regardless of race, from an Ivy League university would leave me with a huge stigma of doubt. In the Transhauser Bush fiasco, the new marketing director has a Wharton MBA and the CEO has a Harvard MBA. Apparently understanding your product and your market was not in the curriculum, like internal controls was missing from the dazzler's mythical MBA program.
It's fun and appealing to presume that someone can overcome the stigma of doubt if they act, speak and behave as we wish. However, that's not how it works. You either got a break getting into and financing school, or you didn't. Most clear-thinking people assume that POC got the break and thus are AA babies. Nobody ever said they'll all prove to be fuck-ups later on. Just that they were gift-wrapped a chance denied others solely because of the accident of their race/ethnicity.
Charles Murray's work adds about a million tons of burden to the issue as well. Ask Bob.
Not sure what you are saying. I don't respect Thomas as a justice because he does what I want, I respect him because he is a Constitutional scholar and despite the personal blowback for his unpopular decisions with the so-called US elite, as a man of character he has remained steadfast as a supporter of the Constitution. Now compare that with Sandra Day O'Connor or John Roberts, a spineless sack of a man and possibly being blackmailed. When you read a Thomas opinion you don't get a recital of how the Euros feel about things, or the use of emanations and penumbras to create super rights out of pure cloth.
I'm obviously opposed to race based admissions and don't doubt that Thomas was an AA admit. The fact that he did get a chance and then ran with it and became one of the great Justices in the last century is not something I hold against him.
Why are we running cover for this guy? Can't we have a good decision and also not have to twist ourselves into a pretzel about someone in the majority. Two things:
Lots of white people grew up in abject poverty outside of Savannah with no running water; and
The odds of AA not having played a role in CT's ascension are pretty low.
The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure, but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Zaid isn't the type of guy who runs cover for Clarence Thomas. The hatred that Thomas and guys like Thomas Sowell get from some on the left is what he's calling out. It's as if they're 'ungrateful' for the white saviors those same lefties think themselves to be. How dare they?
At some point, a person can overcome the stigma of doubt. Thomas clearly has. Kentanji Brown Jackson never will. Neither did Sandra Day O'Connor. In fact, today any degree, regardless of race, from an Ivy League university would leave me with a huge stigma of doubt. In the Transhauser Bush fiasco, the new marketing director has a Wharton MBA and the CEO has a Harvard MBA. Apparently understanding your product and your market was not in the curriculum, like internal controls was missing from the dazzler's mythical MBA program.
It's fun and appealing to presume that someone can overcome the stigma of doubt if they act, speak and behave as we wish. However, that's not how it works. You either got a break getting into and financing school, or you didn't. Most clear-thinking people assume that POC got the break and thus are AA babies. Nobody ever said they'll all prove to be fuck-ups later on. Just that they were gift-wrapped a chance denied others solely because of the accident of their race/ethnicity.
Charles Murray's work adds about a million tons of burden to the issue as well. Ask Bob.
Not sure what you are saying. I don't respect Thomas as a justice because he does what I want, I respect him because he is a Constitutional scholar and despite the personal blowback for his unpopular decisions with the so-called US elite, as a man of character he has remained steadfast as a supporter of the Constitution. Now compare that with Sandra Day O'Connor or John Roberts, a spineless sack of a man and possibly being blackmailed. When you read a Thomas opinion you don't get a recital of how the Euros feel about things, or the use of emanations and penumbras to create super rights out of pure cloth.
Yes, you are. IDC if you respect him, or why. I"ve already covered all that anyway. This is an AA discussion, not a deviation into all the things you care about and like. The "stigma of doubt" has nothing to do with what happens later or can be overcome by doing things that turn out to make you happy. The stigma is that you got there through means other than merit and stole a more deserving person's spot, which is dishonorable on its face, and casts a shadow over all that follows from it because of the taint on how you got your start.
Comments
Also, lots of white people also grew up in abject poverty outside of Savanah and had no running water. The whole point of this decision is, or should be, that the physiological fact of your race/ethnicity is not the defining characteristic of who you are. Evidence of overcoming struggle and burden is relevant, and it turns out that white people experience those things as well. GMAFB.
Also, the odds of CT not having benefited from AA are low, and you all know it. Yale LS is a single-digit admit and from an odds standpoint the least likely place you'll get into among all American law schools. Holy Cross isn't exactly WSU either. And they're both private schools and thus pretty expensive. Nobody knows for sure (well, somebody does, but not us), but the odds are heavy that Clarence Thomas had a helping hand along the way due at least in part to his race. And this demonstrates another negative about AA: the loss of the benefit of the doubt.
Or whatever.
You have at least three AA action babies on the SCOTUS. They all had AA help. The odds one didn't are exceedingly low.
She's at least famous for thinking there were 100,000 children hospitalized with covid, 'many of them on ventilators'.
But his reasoning was garbage. He grew up poor with no running water; hence AA likely isn't what got him to Yale and the SCOTUS. GMAFB. That's new-level stupid. You can't cherry pick your AA babies and assume the one you like is the one who didn't need it, absent clear and definitive proof to the contrary. For Yale LS, I need to see a top 1% LSAT, and a near perfect GPA in a rigorous UG curriculum. Anything less than that, knowing what I know about AA programs, and I'm right in assuming you were given a helping hand.
Again, mind you, I have no problem with his vote. He's entitled to call the shot as it should be called, regardless of his personal circumstances. And Dyson is an idiot.
Giggity.
Edit for Maria Cantwell, too.
Charles Murray's work adds about a million tons of burden to the issue as well. Ask Bob.
At highly selective liberal arts colleges, officials expect that the number of Black students could return to levels not seen since the 1960s. An amicus brief filed by the highly selective liberal arts schools, including Amherst, Wesleyan and Williams, said that “the percentage of Black students matriculating would drop from roughly 7.1 percent of the student body to 2.1 percent.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/affirmative-action-college-students-black-latino.html?searchResultPosition=1
The Gatekeepers are saying what Erica Marsh did, but with science!!!!!! Someone needs to apologize to Charles Murray for all the shit he's taken. @SFGbob Turns out the liberal elite agree with him.
I'm obviously opposed to race based admissions and don't doubt that Thomas was an AA admit. The fact that he did get a chance and then ran with it and became one of the great Justices in the last century is not something I hold against him.