<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clarence Thomas: The Keeper of the Flame</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/296.php/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/296.php</link>
	<description>Mindfulness and Individualism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:29:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/296.php#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.muditajournal.com/archives/000296.php#comment-255</guid>
		<description>Also of interest re Thomas is Mark Tushnet&#039;s Nov05 book, &quot;&lt;a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&amp;tag=theatlasphere-20&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0393327574%2F&quot;&gt;A Court Divided&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;  Here&#039;s a snippet from the Wash. Post (by Dahlia Lithwick, frequent Slate contributor) write-up, posted at Amazon.com:

&quot;Tushnet is pitiless when it comes to condemning Scalia&#039;s abrasive, often abusive personal attacks, which he dismisses as &#039;the sound bite style of Crossfire&#039; and as less than intellectually persuasive to boot. But lest you suspect that he&#039;s advancing a canned liberal agenda, it&#039;s worth noting that Tushnet&#039;s most generous portrait by far is of Clarence Thomas -- a man whose legal work he characterizes as &#039;more interesting and distinctive than what Scalia has done&#039; and with &#039;a greater chance of making an enduring contribution to constitutional law.&#039;&quot;

Tushnet has spun 180 degrees on Thomas, with respect to his ability and the Anita Hill thing, becoming a liberal fan of Thomas&#039;s rulings (even when not agreeing with them).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also of interest re Thomas is Mark Tushnet&#8217;s Nov05 book, &#8220;<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&#038;tag=theatlasphere-20&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=9325&#038;path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0393327574%2F">A Court Divided</a>.&#8221;  Here&#8217;s a snippet from the Wash. Post (by Dahlia Lithwick, frequent Slate contributor) write-up, posted at Amazon.com:</p>
<p>&#8220;Tushnet is pitiless when it comes to condemning Scalia&#8217;s abrasive, often abusive personal attacks, which he dismisses as &#8216;the sound bite style of Crossfire&#8217; and as less than intellectually persuasive to boot. But lest you suspect that he&#8217;s advancing a canned liberal agenda, it&#8217;s worth noting that Tushnet&#8217;s most generous portrait by far is of Clarence Thomas &#8212; a man whose legal work he characterizes as &#8216;more interesting and distinctive than what Scalia has done&#8217; and with &#8216;a greater chance of making an enduring contribution to constitutional law.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>Tushnet has spun 180 degrees on Thomas, with respect to his ability and the Anita Hill thing, becoming a liberal fan of Thomas&#8217;s rulings (even when not agreeing with them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
