Finally, I don't have any intrinsic objection to Black Conservatism per se, though I'm not myself one (I explain why in the extended post) and there are plenty of Black Conservatives who I do object to quite strongly. But on its own, Black Conservatism is not something I “do not like”, and in some ways I find it an admirable counterweight to Black Integrationism/Idealism/Liberalism.

It is like the post modern progressives and look through history and whatever they do not like, they assign to either Republicans or conservatives.

What troubles me about Thomas, though, is that he is a very angry conservative, no matter which brand of conservatism he embraces. This level of emotion in a judge at any level of the court system raises questions about his ability to absorb and contemplate opposing arguments.and the consequences, in the real world, of a judicial decision.

Give me the pragmatism of O”Connor any day of the week, no matter to which party, ideology. or sub-group a judge belongs.. It takes a big dose of dispasionate thinking to arrive at decisions that serve the country, instead of furthering the private ideals of a judge. Clarence Thomas appears to be fighting a very personal battle, and that troubles me a great deal.

That's different (quite a bit different, actually) than believing that racism is a mirage. I think that's the disconnect that a lot of conservatives never noticed- that Thomas wasn't 'on their side' in believing that racism wasn't a big deal. Instead, he very much believes it's a big deal but feels that policies like affirmative action make it worse instead of better. Even though it's unfair, he feels (I think) that blacks just have to accept the inequity that forces them to work harder to achieve the same results, because any attempt to level the playing field just confirms the racist's belief that blacks can't compete without assistance.