The Rocky Mountain News reports that Ken Salazar called Justice Clarence Thomas "an abomination"

Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar on Wednesday called U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "abomination" compared with the late Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Salazar joins fellow western Harry Reid in making racist remarks about Clarence Thomas. How do I know they are racist remarks? Amy Ridenour gives about as good an explanation as I've come across.

Notice that Senator Salazar doesn't point to any of Justice Thomas's decisions or public statements when calling Thomas an "abomination."

No, rather than think of the fine points of Constitutional interpretation -- which is, after all, the job of a Supreme Court justice and thus the matter on which a Justice's competency surely rests -- Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado thought first of race.

Maybe Senator Salazar would like to claim that it is just a coincidence the he compared Justice Thomas to the only other black Justice. (Feel free to write, Senator.)

Maybe Senator Salazar would like to claim that he would have singled out Justice Thomas even if Justice Thomas was white. (This blog's email address is info@nationalcenter.org, Senator.)

Maybe Senator Salazar, if asked without first being given time to have a staffer look up the answer for him, can explain the difference in judicial philosophy between Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- the distinction great enough to get the black man labeled an "abomination" while the white man is left uncriticized.

Or maybe Senator Salazar could explain, without a staffer helping, the difference in judicial philosophy between Chief Justice John Roberts, who Senator Salazar voted to confirm, and Justice Thomas, the "abomination." (Remember, Senator, you have to do this without mentioning that Justice Thomas is a black man.)

I would need a mind-reading machine to prove it, but I believe this is what Senator Salazar, in his heart of hearts, thinks: "Justice Thomas is an abomination because he is black and holds views different from the views I and other mostly-white liberals believe he should hold. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts are allowed to hold views of their own choosing because they are white men, but Thomas should not, because Thomas is black."

Didn't some other Senator say something recently about Congress being "run like a plantation"? Maybe she was thinking of Senator Salazar's views. It is anyone guess what confidences Senators share in the cloakroom.

You go girl.

This is a shocking attitude in 2006, and not one I've ever encountered in the great neighboring state of Colorado. Its incredible that Democrats manage to find so many candidates for office that have the instincts of a neaderthal (apologies to the neaderthals). We have the image of a besotted playboy making waitress sandwiches with fellow Democrat Chris Dodds, lecturing a moral paragon like Sam Alito. A former Senate leader in the character of Robert Byrd was was a member of the KKK in good standing (well past the time when such an affliation was common).

Should Clarence Thomas run into Senator Salazar somewhere in Washington D.C., I think it would be entirely appropriate for him to plow a furrow in the Senator's face. Aside from Nancy Pelosi, who would really hold it against him?