I’m sure everyone has seen this already, but it was just too rich to pass up. Our Great Leader nearly argued that Clarence Thomas was too inexperienced to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Then, he followed up by arguing that “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker.”
I know of another fellow in the same profession. For the sake of argument, let’s say his name is Barack Obama. Let’s say that this fellow worked as a law professor for ten years, and never published anything in a scholarly journal. He did, however, churn out a couple of best-sellers about the one subject he was passionate about: himself. Would this qualify Mr. Obama as “a strong enough jurist or legal thinker?” Isn’t it presumptuous to argue that a person who has achieved much greater success than yourself in the same profession is unfit to an inferior office than the one you are claiming to be qualified for?
Leaving aside his embrace of the left’s established crypto-racist opinion of Clarence Thomas’ qualifications, exactly how meglomaniacal is this guy?
August 18, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Your article makes a good point.
Technically speaking Obama begged the question. One has to assume that Obama is an expert in constitutional interpretation for his opinion on Thomas to have any value, which expertise is precisely the one “part-time” law professor or lecturer Obama has not demonstrated he has to anybody but himself.
By the way Obama improvised this answer. The only proper answer would have been along the following words: “This is a difficult and hypothetical question and I strongly feel it would be unfair and cowardly to express my opinion on a judge who does not have the opportunity to reply”.