I was not going to write anymore today, but after reading this article by MAUREEN DOWD in the NY Times(I will refrain from any jokes) about Justice Thomas' dissent in the Michigan Law school case, I felt compelled to write.

Bitter Liberal

Andrew Sullivan

does a good job of addressing the article, but I feel I must add to it.

First off, she describes "The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received." She then goes on to say " It's poignant, really. It makes him crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his race." So, what exactly is she implying? Is she saying that any minority who achieves a high position will only get there with the help of their white benefactors and therefore can not achieve it on their own accord ? Or is Dowd implying that a minority who does not follow the liberal mode of thinking and in fact is a conservative, certainly can't achieve high office, irrespective of their race, because all conservatives are racists?

Dowd goes on to say "When the 43-year-old was nominated by Bush 41 with the preposterous claim that he was "the best qualified" man for the job, G.O.P. strategists diverted attention away from the judge's scant credentials". Scant Credentials? Here is a bit form his Biography: J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974. Was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974 and served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri from 1974-1977. He was an attorney with the Monsanto Company from 1977-1979. Served as a legislative assistant to Senator John Danforth from 1977-1981.From 1981-1982, he served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education• Was chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982-1990. He became a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1990. President Bush nominated him as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991

Bio

I would not call this a scant record except that unlike some, he spent his career practicing law rather than teaching it Or unlike Justice Ginsburg, he did not spend his time as the General Counsel of such a liberal institution as the ACLU.

Finally she states, "President Bush, the Yale legacy who also disdains affirmative action, is playing affirmative action politics in the preliminary vetting of a prospective Supreme Court nominee, Alberto Gonzales. No doubt Bush 43 will call Mr. Gonzales the best qualified man for the job, rather than the one best qualified to help harvest the 2004 Hispanic vote." Well first off, President Bush is not the only one who believes that Gonzales is well qualified, the ABA agrees with him. Secondly, She is implying that all conservatives, including the President, are racists because the only reason they would nominate a minority is because they are a minority and not because they believe they would make a very good Judge. Finally, she sneers at President Bush's status as a Yale Legacy. First off, Equal Protection is limited to discrimination based on race, religion, or gender and NOT preferences given for status. The 14th amendment allows anyone to give any beneficial treatment as long as it is not based on Race religion, gender, if it is, the preference is evaluated under a higher level of scrutiny, something Dowd seems to not understand. A Legacy is not based on Race, religion, or gender and therefore does not require Strict Scrutiny.