Clarence Thomas and Supreme perspective

Supreme perspective

Clarence Thomas tried and found wanting in blackness v. fairness

Editor, The Times:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is challenged in "Color Clarence Thomas conservative" [Times, Froma Harrop syndicated column, July 6] for not being black enough, for not being good enough ("... special shout-out to Clarence Thomas"), for somehow selling out.

Frederick Douglass warned of elites who would demand blacks speak with "one voice" and stay on the plantation.

Where was the opinion on how the race of Chief Justice John Roberts or Justices Antonin Scalia or Samuel Alito figured in their decisions? How might they have let their race down? (For that matter, how would they rate among members of their race?)

I recall similar comments about former Secretary of State Colin Powell and how well he spoke — thus he could not really be black. The same types of comments were hurled at current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Black actors such as Sidney Poitier, Will Smith and Oprah Winfrey have had their blackness questioned in popular media. As a black man, I tire of seeing this ignorant message, telling young, black people that if they try to excel and become individuals in life, they are acting white and are sellouts; [that] if you stick to basketball, drug-dealing, [other crimes] and commonly held "black" viewpoints, you're keeping it real and thus you're OK.

When does it end?

— Joseph D. Emanuel II, Seattle

Justice prevails

If Clarence Thomas were a white Supreme Court justice, no one — nobody — would question his credentials or fitness to sit on the court.

Some of the most famous Supreme Court jurists never wore judicial robes before receiving their nominations. John Marshall, Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis are on the short list of Supreme Court jurists who had no judicial qualifications. Also, let us not forget nominee Harriet Miers' résumé and experience for the Supreme Court. Who questioned their credentials?

Thomas may have benefited from an affirmative-action scholarship only because this country has a history of excluding blacks from professional schools and employment. It is no wonder Thomas kept his pile of rejection letters from law schools as a keepsake. It reminds him of the segregation and discrimination that blacks of his generation and before had to endure. There were no legacy admission programs (i.e., white man's affirmative action) and cronyism for him to take advantage of.

Thomas grew up in the segregated South, graduated with honors from Holy Cross College and from Yale Law School despite the odds against him. Good for him. His background should not dictate how he should rule on law, any more than it should for the other justices. He should be commended for his refusal to be typecast because he is black.

— Stanley McKie, Kent

Over the handlebars

Bikers collide with reality

After reading syndicated columnist Neal Peirce's fantasy piece, "Life in the bike lane" [July 9], I am convinced mass-biking advocates are subject to some sort of strange malaise that hinders clear thinking. His misguided musings about building exclusive lanes for bicycles — separating bikers from the rest of mankind with curbs, special routes and other nonsensical, special-interest accommodations — indicate that Peirce has become deeply afflicted with this hopeless malady.

Peirce's pitch for two-wheel perks reflects the current craze in Seattle and King County to pander to the whims of a petite but vociferous clique of Spandex hucksters who spout two falsehoods: 1) that there are vast numbers of people willing to pedal around town, around the calendar, using bikes as their basic means of transportation; and 2) that they are somehow making a serious contribution to cleaning up the environment and combating global warming.

Both suggestions are delusional.

It is unfair to steal road space from one set of users (motor vehicleists, who pay for their privileges with license fees, annual car tabs and fuel taxes) and hand the turf over to freeloading bikers to more efficiently congest streets with their single-occupancy, recreational vehicles.

— Dean Trier, Redmond

Libby quibbles

For the last time

The twisted logic of some on the right on the Libby clemency would be downright laughable if it weren't such a serious issue ["Uprighting Scooter," Northwest Voices, July 6].

In invoking, once again, the Clinton pardons to support their position, they cannot see that if they believe Bill Clinton was wrong, then George W. Bush also is wrong.

And, as if the lies haven't been debunked a thousand times already, here we go again:

• The underlying crime that they insist is absent, was and is I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation into the leak of the name of a covert CIA agent. (Oh, and, by the way, where was the underlying crime Clinton committed?)

• Valerie Plame certainly was an undercover agent working in a group investigating the sale of nuclear weapons to both terrorist and criminal organizations. Her career is over, and a valuable undercover organization was breached and subsequently disbanded.

• As a CIA agent (or a "glorified secretary," as the neocons would have it), Plame had no power or authority to "send" her husband on any mission except perhaps to the grocery store. As a respected agent, she was, however, approached by her boss to ask her husband if he would be willing to travel to Niger to investigate the claim that Saddam Hussein was negotiating the purchase of yellowcake uranium in that country.

If you're going to weigh in on this subject, please do your homework, drop the neocon talking points, and call it what it was.

— Lindsay Allen, Kirkland

Go back to the origin

One would hope that your writers/editorialists would deal in facts. Lynne K. Varner apparently fails the journalistic muster in that regard. Witness her statement in "Notes from the swamp" [Editorial Notebook, July 9]: "The rest of the country may be looking forward to media absent 'Scooter' and the spy he outed, but not so here."

Did "Scooter" Libby out the "spy"? I believe that was someone else.

Just the facts, ma'am, please.

— Dave Herrington, Seattle

Lobster tails, you win

Chowderheads, you lose

In reading "Shellfish settlement ends years of rancor" [Local News, July 6], regarding the settlement between the Indian tribes and the commercial shellfish growers negotiated by Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Bremerton, it seems it was a good deal for everyone except the taxpayers. We are the ones who have to come up with the $33 million for the settlement.

Tell me, do we get a discount at the restaurant the next time we order clam chowder?

— Donald Wyne, Maple Valley