Justice Clarence Thomas’s new autobiography dredges up his 16-year-old battle with Anita Hill and fulminates against liberal groups, Democratic senators and others who opposed his nomination. The clash with Ms. Hill has grabbed most of the headlines. But his fulminations deserve more attention. The rage he harbors raises questions about whether he can sit as an impartial judge in many of the cases the Supreme Court hears.When Supreme Court justices write books, which is not often, they tend to write about subjects and in ways that are consistent with the dignity of the court. When he was chief justice, William Rehnquist wrote about the 1876 presidential election; Justice Stephen Breyer’s “Active Liberty†set forth a specific view of the Constitution.
The problem with Justice Thomas’s book, “My Grandfather’s Son,†is that it nurses bitter grudges and throws brickbats at organizations and people who opposed his nomination and might well appear before the court. Some of his targets, like Senator Joseph Biden and Yale Law School, he mentions by name. Others, like the American Civil Liberties Union, are not attacked as directly, but it is not hard to connect the dots.
The level of hostility is striking. He grew up fearing the Ku Klux Klan, he says, but “my worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.â€Â
Justices have an obligation to avoid off-the-bench behavior hurtful to the court’s mission and reputation. They must also comply with federal law, which holds that justices should recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they are biased against a party or lawyer or in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas. But the Supreme Court allows justices to make their own recusal decisions, and no one should expect to see Justice Thomas bowing out of cases based on angry comments in his memoir.
And here’s a strange way to draw a political cartoonist. You have to click through cartoons and go to number 6 in USA Today.
Dan, his book really does not reflect well on him. I would prefer he concentrate on episodes in his life that shaped his judicial outlook, but I guess crankiness sells.
An op-ed piece doesn’t really have to be even-handed, does it?
They say the hostility is striking, using this passage as a touchstone: “my worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia, but in Washington, D.C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.â€Â
Then they use the same kind of language in denouncing him.
kyle: Do memoirs have to be even-handed?
SarahW:
Perhaps in style it might not reflect well on him but what about substance? Besides, he walks a fine line when it comes to the things that shape his judicial philosophy. I think he elected to write about the things he is passionate about. Do I think he should let go of his bitterness? Maybe. Do I think that writing about important times in his life makes him “irrational” or “biased?” No!
The criticism is style over substance and a see a certain level of hypocrisy in broad brushing him as the angry, irrational black conservative justice.
Why is any of this surprising to anyone?
Clarence Thomas is not acting like a happy (leftist) plantation negro and that make some people scared.
Sure, they can dress it up in fancy words and say it’s all about the tenor and dignity of the court. But nobody is fooled.
Jimmah’s published collections of lies, plagarism, and shamelessness have not attracted nearly the same level of acrimony.
They’re3 using freakin’ FLASHPLAYER for cartoons?
Yes, Robin, these people are morons…
By this logic, any conservative judge would have to recuse themselves whenever the New York Times had business before the Supreme Court. I think you can reasonable question their ability to take the New York Times seriously.
ably. I meant ably. Not able.
Sarah W.,
I haven’t read it, but I’m wondering how much of it focuses on the Anita Hill/confirmation stuff. It’s not as if he could write a memoir and ignore that, but does it dominate the book?
I thought Cap’n Ed did a good job of reminding us that if, anything, Judge Thomas is not nearly bitter enough.
A bit of a jew on black hate crime really.
Pray tell, sarah, how much of the book is crankiness?
hf–
The Thomas confirmation hearings were one of the things that made me determine I was conservative.
“An op-ed piece doesn’t really have to be even-handed, does it?”
Nope, but to be intellectually honest it should have some facts to back up its conclusions. Good thing that’s not deemed a problem.
So Clarence Thomas has baggage.. Which of us doesn’t ?. It’s the baggage, the traumas and travails of our life that shape our perception of reality, our character and ultimately who we are.. Is a Supreme Court Justice somehow supposed to be above this common fact of human existence? Our system depends not on our leaders being inhuman, superhuman or freakin’ Gandhi, but in being able to set their personal history, opinions, biases, like, dislikes, grudges and hurts aside and do their job with professional detachment following the law and their own conscience. However, setting them aside doesn’t mean forgetting about everyone that’s screwed you without so much as the common courtesy of a reach around.
I’m not put off at all by his angry recollections regarding the whole Anita Hill affair.. I’d be more surprised if he took a pacifist “forgive and forget” attitude.. that would be just weird.
A pubic hair on his Coke can…. Indeed…
I remember that this was the argument that the Los Angeles Times made against the nomination at the time. A coalition of Left-wing groups, concerned that Thomas would be the tipping point vote to overturn Roe in the future, mounted a scorched-earth (even by Bork standards) attack on him. Then, when it failed, they wanted to argue that he shouldn’t be confirmed, because now he was going to be mad at them. If that rationale succeeded, every nominee would face the same tactics.
Far be it from me to defend the NYT, but I just thought this missed the point. It’s their *opinion* on a memoir. Which they are entitled to, crazy as they may be.
This part:
“If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas. But the Supreme Court allows justices to make their own recusal decisions, and no one should expect to see Justice Thomas bowing out of cases based on angry comments in his memoir.”
was definitely silly and over-the-top, though, to be sure.
“If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas”
So by that rule, nobody to right of the ACLU could get a fair hearing from Ginsburg…
Ah, MJ, you’ve fallen into the trap. Ms. Ginsburg has never openly expressed her animus to those who have wronged her.
Well she should as the vote to confirm her was … um … 95 -0.
Carry on!
SarahW,
I don’t know how old you are, or how much attention you paid to the Thomas hearings.
But what I remember is that the left wing, led by Teddy the Drunk, really pulled out all the stops to keep him off the court. No speculation (read: lie) was too far out to trumpetin the media or spew at the hearings. This was rank character assasination. The abortion industry and the usual aclu-type organizations used a sledgehammer on his reputation in an attempt to destroy a human being for political purposes. If anyone did to me what was done to him, I’d spend the rest of my life kicking their asses,one by one.
Heh, Thomas did that one better, he wrote a book.
Twenty or fifty years from now what is more likely to be read, an NYT editorial, or the memoirs of the second black man to be a Supreme Court Justice.
That’s a gift that just keeps on giving.
You’re kidding right? This NYT op-ed is more even-handed than most of their front page news. The NYT should be praised for not printing any top secret classified information so far today. In fact, an editorial criticizing Justice Thomas may be as close as they ever get to supporting the war in Iraq. I for one welcome this move to the right by the NYT.
– “I for one welcome this move to the right by the NYT.”
– for those of you keepoing score at home, that puts the old grey lady just a little bit right of Lenin.
Yet another episode which the left is feverishly rewriting.
Think about the degree of difficulty in the mental gymnastics involved to a) take Thomas to task for being a little bitter over a trumped up case of whatever that was supposed to be and b) wave off Bill Clinton’s actual shenanigan’s as a “private matter.”
Fractals don’t have this many convolutions.
That’s a very good point really.
I remember watching the Thomas confirmation hearings, lo these many years ago. Like others, it was one of those early realizations that the left was somewhat less impressive than I thought they should be.
Mind you, on further examination, it was pretty clear that the Senators in question were all nucking futs, and cynical liars to boot.
Such behavior has, unfortunately, spread like a virus through the left, as we are all sad witness to. These days, it seems those leftist accusations that turn out to be true can be attributed to chance.
Actually, this whole supreme court quagmire is Clarence Thomas’ fault. He could have refused his appointment. He could have said no thanks I don’t want to be a part of completely politicizing the Supreme Court. He didn’t. So Justice Thomas really did this to himself. He has no one to blame but himself.
What part of hoist on his own petard don’t you understand?
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.
Somewhere there is a review of Clinton’s autobiography that uses the phrase “righteous anger” in describing Bubba’s lines on Ken Starr.
Bet me.
I’ll even give all takers 1:5 odds.
Not. I’m bored so I make my own troll. Sorry.
Nice job.
[…] I highlighted a beautifully even-handed NYT op-ed that argues that due to his feelings regarding the “high-tech lynching” attempted on […]
I’m sure I agree with the point of this post. However, I’m not sure what the point of the post is. What’s all the bolding and italicizing supposed to mean?
#
Comment by Merovign on 10/5 @ 4:18 pm #
I remember watching the Thomas confirmation hearings, lo these many years ago. Like others, it was one of those early realizations that the left was somewhat less impressive than I thought they should be.
Mind you, on further examination, it was pretty clear that the Senators in question were all nucking futs, and cynical liars to boot.
Such behavior has, unfortunately, spread like a virus through the left, as we are all sad witness to. These days, it seems those leftist accusations that turn out to be true can be attributed to chance.
It was then that realized, at that late date in my life, that any interview, by anybody , in front of the United States Congress or any admixture thereof, was simply a dog and pony show. For the masses.
Hmm. I can conclude only one thing: Dan Collins Does Not Care About Clarity.â„¢
Difference in words used in relation to Thomas vs his opponents.