Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03
I don't really remember anyone back in 1991 playing up Clarence Thomas's background when it's just as humble, if not more so, than Sotomayor's. There's a double-standard for sure, but it's also probably based on the fact that GHWB's base wasn't into the "back story" the way that many liberals are.
The fact that he was a good jurist was enough for the GOP back then--why isn't it for the left wing today?
|
The issue with Thomas was that he was NOT a good jurist - at least, there was a significant chance that he wasn't, according to both the ABA and the general concept of precedent (which he's not particularly fond of). His background got play, but was quickly washed under by the spectacle of his confirmation hearings - and not just Anita Hill.
I'll grant that the backstory probably plays better with DNC-aligned audiences, but it's still generally compelling, and the only 'downside' is that it allows the RNC to really strike using stereotyping and innuendo, which isn't exactly a perfect, no-fail strategy considering how much the Republicans need Hispanics going forward.
Threaded Mode
