tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12361512761911517022023-11-16T04:02:04.516-08:00Justice Thomas Appreciation PageUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger177125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-52534592243236441732012-09-18T12:19:00.000-07:002012-09-18T12:19:01.377-07:00Justice Thomas at National ArchivesFrom the New York Times:
<br />
<blockquote>
<br />
<div class="timestamp" style="color: #a81817; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; margin-top: 15px; white-space: nowrap;">
September 17, 2012</div>
<div class="kicker" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-top: 15px; text-transform: uppercase;">
</div>
<h1 style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 2.4em; line-height: 1.083em; margin: 0px;">
<nyt_headline type=" " version="1.0">From Justice Thomas, a Little Talk About Race, Faith and the Court</nyt_headline></h1>
<nyt_byline style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px;"></nyt_byline><br />
<h6 class="byline" style="color: grey; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.2em; margin: 2px 0px;">
By <span itemid="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/adam_liptak/index.html" itemprop="creator" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/adam_liptak/index.html" rel="author" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="More Articles by ADAM LIPTAK">ADAM LIPTAK</a></span></h6>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzPjYbBCc2v-SwvnAEYLWC7Xo-JABiom4KTULKf5ZuNuK8YLZJ52gSwrBO1KcBbZ9AouZprxZsTEhP4u_42P1XKL_IKNwaQFX8lwOZDs4srM1s2a-K1DFKnLKkHtHKKtafJUgJz0fNS7K3/s1600/18bar1-popup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzPjYbBCc2v-SwvnAEYLWC7Xo-JABiom4KTULKf5ZuNuK8YLZJ52gSwrBO1KcBbZ9AouZprxZsTEhP4u_42P1XKL_IKNwaQFX8lwOZDs4srM1s2a-K1DFKnLKkHtHKKtafJUgJz0fNS7K3/s320/18bar1-popup.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px;"></span><nyt_text style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px;"></nyt_text><br />
<div id="articleBody">
<nyt_correction_top></nyt_correction_top><br />
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
WASHINGTON — Justice <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thomas/index.html?inline=nyt-per" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="More articles about Clarence Thomas.">Clarence Thomas</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13thomas.html" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="article on five-year anniversary">has not asked a question from the bench</a> in more than six years, and he seldom appears in public in Washington, a city he says is full of cynics, smart alecks and people who have agendas rather than convictions.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
But he opened up last week in a public interview at the National Archives, talking about his race, his faith and relations among the justices after <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/politics/scorn-and-withering-scorn-for-chief-justice-roberts.html" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="article">a term that ended with bitter divisions</a>.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
For the most part, Justice Thomas spoke somberly about the weight of history and the burdens of his job. But he allowed himself the occasional bit of rueful humor.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“People say horrible things,” he said, smiling. “They say that, well, I’m not black. So I’m just a little doubtful I should say I’m black.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
He said he preferred a time when there was less identification of “who’s what,” and he recalled his youth.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“I was Catholic,” he said. “You talk about a minority within a minority within a minority: a black Catholic in Savannah, Ga.” Yet, he said, “nobody bothered me.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The occasion for the interview was <a href="http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2012/nr12-154.html" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="press release">the Constitution’s 225th anniversary</a> and the publication of a new book called “America’s Unwritten Constitution.” Its author, <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/AAmar.htm" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="Professor Amar’s web site">Akhil Reed Amar</a>, a law professor at Yale, questioned Justice Thomas for more than an hour.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
When Professor Amar mentioned that there are, for the first time in history, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11liptak.html" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="article ">no Protestants on the Supreme Court</a>, Justice Thomas changed the subject.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“We’re all from the Ivy League,” he said. “That seems to be more relevant than what faith we are.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
(Justice Thomas is one of six Catholics on the court. The other three justices are Jewish.)</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
He did say that religion played an important role in the nation’s founding and in his own life.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“I grew up in a religious environment, and I’m proud of it,” he said. “I was going to be a priest; I’m proud of it. And I thank God I believe in God, or I would probably be enormously angry right now.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
He did not elaborate on that last point, but there has often been an undercurrent of bitterness in Justice Thomas’s public remarks since his confirmation hearings in 1991, when he faced accusations of sexual harassment.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The evening was sponsored by the <a href="http://www.fed-soc.org/" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="Federalist Society site">Federalist Society</a>, a conservative group, and the <a href="http://theusconstitution.org/" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="CAC site">Constitutional Accountability Center</a>, a liberal one. They agree, though, that constitutional interpretation should be rooted in the document’s text and history. Those are principles closely associated with Justice Thomas, but he seemed to dismiss them.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“You’re supposed to say there’s some angle, some methodology you’re pushing,” he said. “There’s originalism. There’s textualism. All these useless peripheral debates other than just doing our jobs as best we can.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
In June, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F11pdf%2F11-393c3a2.pdf&ei=5qNTUN6GJqbV0gG0o4HIAQ&usg=AFQjCNEbnk45Ud-Rl4lBKT4wsz0RRAn_CQ&sig2=VNIKpmodnb6OuKQ4Rk2cLA" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="decision">the Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s health care law</a> by a 5-to-4 vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s four more liberal members in the majority. The chief justice’s vote was a surprise, and there were reports of a rift between him and some of his usual allies among the court’s conservatives.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Justice Thomas did not address the controversy directly, but he said relationships on the court are cordial.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“Do we agree?” he asked. “No more than the framers agreed.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
But he said the disagreements were principled and civil. “These are good people,” he said of his colleagues.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
He cited Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the senior member of the court’s liberal wing, calling her “a fabulous judge” and a friend.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“Now, how often do we agree?” he asked.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“A lot, actually,” Professor Amar responded, and a look of incredulity passed over the justice’s face.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Professor Amar noted that the court frequently rendered unanimous decisions.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“Oh, the <em>unanimous </em>cases,” Justice Thomas said with a lightly mocking tone that suggested the professor was both right and wrong. “I like that. That’s really a shrewd move. There’s one category of cases in which we agree. What are they? The unanimous cases.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
In fact, Justices Thomas and Ginsburg agreed in 21 percent of the court’s divided cases in the last term, tying for last place, <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/final-october-term-2011-stat-pack-and-summary-memo/" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="Scotusblog report">according to Scotusblog</a>. (The other pair of justices least likely to agree was Justice Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia.)</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
Even as Justice Thomas spoke passionately about the stain that slavery and segregation left on the nation’s history, he seemed wary about giving the courts too large a role in addressing their legacy. On Oct. 10, the court will hear a major case about affirmative action in higher education, Fisher v. University of Texas, and Justice Thomas will almost certainly vote against allowing the university to take account of race in admissions decisions.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
In reflecting on his youth, Justice Thomas rejected one of the rationales the Supreme Court offered in 1954 in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0347_0483_ZO.html" style="color: #666699; text-decoration: none;" title="decision">Brown v. Board of Education</a> for forbidding segregation in public schools.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“I hear people say, it affected your self-esteem to be segregated,” he said. “It never affected mine.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
He also shared a memory about Justice Thurgood Marshall, who argued the Brown case and whom Justice Thomas succeeded on the Supreme Court.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
“I sat with him in a meeting when I first got to the court, a courtesy visit that was supposed to last 10 minutes,” Justice Thomas said. “It lasted two-and-a-half hours, and he regaled me with stories.”</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="color: black; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em;">
The meeting included a bit of advice, Justice Thomas said. “He looked at me very quiet and said, ‘I had to do in my time what I had to do, and you have to do in your time what you have to do.’ ”</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-12984016416958820762009-10-23T18:03:00.000-07:002009-10-23T18:07:12.871-07:00Justice Thomas NewsFrom the <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_THOMAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Associated Press</a>: <blockquote>TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) -- Clarence Thomas, the justice long known as the silent member of the Supreme Court, criticized his colleagues Friday for badgering attorneys rather than letting them speak during oral arguments.<br /><br />Thomas - who hasn't asked a lawyer a question during arguments in nearly four years - said he and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.<br /><br />"So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it," Thomas said during an appearance before law students at the University of Alabama.<br /></blockquote>From the <a href="http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20091023/NEWS/910239954/1007?Title=US-Supreme-Court-Justice-Clarence-Thomas-visits-UA">Tuscaloosa News</a>: <blockquote>United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would have made a good stand-up comedian.<br /><br />University of Alabama School of law students roared with laughter throughout Thomas’ lecture Friday afternoon that was more of a question and answer session.<br /><br />Thomas, 61, lowered his already deep voice and answered one question with a Nick Saban impression.<br /><br />“It’s a process,” he replied to a query about his decision-making process. “You’re not perfect, you’re always analyzing yourself. I could be a good coach.”<br /><br />* * * He was nominated in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush after serving for just a year on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.<br /><br />“I argued against it, I’d been on the Court of Appeals long enough,” he said. “But when the president calls you, the words out of your mouth are ‘Yes, Mr. President.’”<br /><br />He first spoke at the school in 2005.<br /><br />“Last time, I was more on the junior side,” he said. “There are things you learn after 18 years. You’ve seen just about all that you’re going to see,” he said. “Most cases are permutations of the same issue.”<br /><br />Many of the students’ questions were about Thomas’ path to where he is now and what kind of advice he would give a young law student.<br /><br />Thomas grew up in Pin Point, Ga., a rural settlement outside Savannah in coastal Georgia that was founded by freed slaves after the Civil War. He spoke Geechee, or Gullah, language until he was a teen.<br /><br />“I found law school difficult. You see my old textbooks, and you’ll see that the textbooks won,” he said. “My journey was in many ways very unhappy and enormously difficult.”<br /><br />. . . <br /><br />Thomas said that he preferred to hire law clerks from modest backgrounds.<br /><br />“There are too many up there who think they should be there because they’re from an elite background,” he said. Students laughed when he described how former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in 2005, could get things done with a glare.<br /><br />“He was more of a father figure of the World War II generation,” he said when asked how Rehnquist differs from Chief Justice John Roberts. “Chief Justice Roberts is a contemporary.” . . . .</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-83254311679227500902009-10-17T11:37:00.001-07:002009-10-17T11:37:58.332-07:00Justice Thomas at W&L UniversityHere's a video of Justice Thomas's 10/2009 speech at Washington & Lee University, titled "Lincoln for the Ages: Lessons for the 21st Century": <br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cLUJYFVINk8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cLUJYFVINk8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-48537453176158226552009-06-02T09:32:00.000-07:002009-06-02T09:34:44.793-07:00Another Justice Thomas graduation speechFrom the <a href="http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2009/06/justice-clarence-thomas-addresses-grads.html">Northern Virginia Daily</a>: <blockquote><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRqhX2XxOaa-SkoxSXOkeTxwyBpFldTVFbzr90OhcbPy7z_k_0icRoAlh_b_4FdBIDOzPvzZRZ3hLk6v2s8kItpQuijidF9CJoGmNEovaMtgoeFCT6v8Hcr4XepG9SBooAOgatHUDfwVuT/s1600-h/rma3_05.30.09.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 278px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRqhX2XxOaa-SkoxSXOkeTxwyBpFldTVFbzr90OhcbPy7z_k_0icRoAlh_b_4FdBIDOzPvzZRZ3hLk6v2s8kItpQuijidF9CJoGmNEovaMtgoeFCT6v8Hcr4XepG9SBooAOgatHUDfwVuT/s320/rma3_05.30.09.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5342769469493072290" /></a><br /><br />Justice Clarence Thomas addresses grads on life<br /><br />By Linwood Outlaw III -- loutlaw@nvdaily.com<br /><br />FRONT ROYAL -- More than four decades have passed since Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was a young high school student on the brink of entering the real world.<br /><br />However, Thomas says there are some things about those days that you never forget.<br /><br />"Graduation was my favorite day of school," Thomas joked as he addressed Randolph-Macon Academy's Class of 2009 at the military school's annual commencement at the Melton Memorial Gymnasium on Saturday morning. "I still believe that graduating from high school is a very special day."<br /><br />Thomas, the ceremony's keynote speaker, told students that "life can be hard," and that "it will be up to you to make as many good decisions as possible." Thomas urged them to stay positive, and to always value the "three F's": faith, friends and family.<br /><br />"Life is not easy. It's not easy for any of us. It will probably not be fair. And, it is certainly not all about you," said Thomas, 60, a member of the Supreme Court since 1991.<br /><br />About 90 students received their high school diplomas from the 117-year old, co-ed boarding school on Saturday. Many of the graduates have been accepted to prestigious four-year universities, and others will continue their military studies at schools such as Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel. In all, the graduates earned more than $3 million in merit scholarships for post-secondary education, school officials said.<br /><br />Tae Ho Lee, the senior class valedictorian, said he thinks of his peers at Randolph-Macon Academy as family.<br /><br />"Let's keep in touch, and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Class of 2009, we're taking over," he told his peers.<br /><br />Lee plans to attend the University of California at Berkeley.<br /><br />Maj. Gen. Henry M. Hobgood, president of the academy, said he expects great things from this year's graduating class.<br /><br />"I think they take [with them] the great academic background [of this school]. And probably more importantly, the thing that will stick with them the rest of their lives is preparation for life," Hobgood said. "Our school is all about character and all about good values. And that's what makes a person in the long run."<br /><br />Randolph-Macon's Class of 2009 has many unique qualities, Hobgood said.<br /><br />"Every graduating class is different. This one is unique because it's very diverse," he said. "They're very capable. [They have] a lot of academic success, a lot of athletic success. But mostly, they're just a class that has great character. And I think they're going to do well in life. I mean, it's a very unusual class in that regard. I'm very proud of each one of them."<br /><br />Some of the students come from foreign countries such as Arabia, Korea, China and Spain.<br /><br />The graduates were overcome with joy after the ceremony as they embraced their families and took pictures outside the gym.<br /><br />Eliana Eitches, 17, an honors student who plans to attend Columbia University in New York, said she "definitely matured a lot" while attending Randolph-Macon Academy. "I sort of got serious about school, got serious about studying. And then I accomplished my goal, which was to go to Columbia," said Eitches, who received about $500,000 worth of scholarships.<br /><br />Chase Beatty, 18, was a busy man during his three-year stay at the academy. He played on the varsity football team and ran track. Beatty was also a member of Cadre, the student leadership of the Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. Earlier this year, he successfully earned his private pilot certification.<br /><br />Beatty said Randolph-Macon "was a tough experience," but that he takes away "a more grown sense of myself, a bigger sense of my character and what I want to do with my life."<br /><br />"It's just helped me to take steps in the right direction. It's given me a solid foundation to build on," said Beatty, who plans to attend The Citadel in South Carolina in the fall.<br /><br />"I consider this as step one. I've just got many more steps to go. It's a staircase."</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-54115439863774785782009-06-02T09:31:00.001-07:002009-06-02T09:32:25.944-07:00Slate Columnist Praises ThomasThis is a first: Dahlia Lithwick, the liberal Slate legal columnist who is usually seen distorting facts in order to mock conservatives, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2219253">takes an opportunity</a> to praise Thomas: <blockquote>The temptation to smack back and argue that we deserve to seat Sotomayor because Thomas was a lousy affirmative-action pick who turned into a third-rate justice is hard to resist. But it's flat wrong. Liberals achieve nothing by suggesting that Thomas' elevation to the high court was preposterous on its face or that his tenure there has been a disgrace....<br /><br />Claims that Thomas is too stupid to ask questions and in constant peril of embarrassing himself at the court are just not that different than claims that Sotomayor is mediocre. Nobody who has followed Thomas' 18-year career at the Supreme Court believes him to be a dunce or a Scalia clone. Whether you accept Jan Crawford Greenburg's claim that Thomas' constitutional theories are so forceful that they have shaped Scalia's or you believe the more common view that Thomas has a deeply reasoned and consistent judicial philosophy that differs dramatically from those of the court's other conservatives, accusations that he's been a dim bulb are just false. They also reveal that the name-calling that originates now, during the confirmation process, engenders a mythology that can never be erased.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-12690971879102999232009-06-02T09:27:00.000-07:002009-06-02T09:28:56.688-07:00Thomas high school graduation speechFrom the <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Thomas-tells-high-school-grads-Always-do-right-even-when-its-hard_06_02-46671962.html">Washington Examiner</a>: <blockquote>Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke before several hundred graduating seniors on Monday and commended to them the same timeless values he said had led him to their podium.<br /><br />“It is never wrong to do what is right,” he told Gaithersburg’s Quince Orchard High School class of 2009. “Hard, but never wrong.”<br /><br />The rare public appearance began with a conversation on a flight from Omaha, Neb., to Washington, D.C.<br /><br />Quince Orchard football star Terrence Stephens was returning from a recruiting trip at the University of Nebraska. Thomas, a die-hard Cornhusker fan, recognized him immediately. The young man had no idea who Thomas was.<br /><br />“It was scary because this guy who I didn’t know was telling me all about myself,” Stephens said.<br /><br />But he was polite and entertained Thomas’ uncommon obsession, which springs in part from his marriage to a Nebraskan. And that made all of the difference. In the months since, Thomas has become a mentor to Stephens. And it was the school’s top jock who invited the 17-year justice to speak before his graduating class.<br /><br />Thomas urged the graduates to honor traditional values of humility, hard work and gratitude. “Always have good manners — they will open doors,” he told the graduates.<br /><br />“Stay positive,” he said. “There will be many around you who are cynical or negative or know-it-alls or bitter. These attitudes are cancers of the spirit that do nothing worthwhile, and rob one of the spirit to prosper.”<br /><br />He reminded them of their place, even as they felt on top of the world.<br /><br />“Life is not easy for any of us. It will probably not be fair, and it certainly is not all about you,” he said. “The gray hairs and wrinkles you see on older people have been earned the hard way, by living and dealing with the challenges of life.”<br /><br />And he brought laughter by confessing no familiarity with modern indulgences like text messaging or Twitter, or even Facebook.<br /><br />Thomas asked them to be grateful. He told a story of his eighth-grade teacher whom he thanked many years later, and stayed in touch with until her death. Among her favorite possessions was a framed photo with Thomas.<br /><br />His voice broke slightly as he recalled words she told him near her death: “This goes in my coffin with me.”<br /><br />“Thank your parents and teachers and all who helped you,” Thomas said. “A simple thank you will do wonders.”<br /><br />It’s a message he has already begun to instill in Stephens. “I’m so thankful — he has already offered me so much,” the young man said. “Now, he wants me to keep helping myself, so that he can keep helping me.” </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-59144018537100096602009-06-02T09:24:00.000-07:002009-06-02T09:27:48.066-07:00"We Didn't Know He Was Clarence Thomas"From <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/We-Didnt-Know-He-Was-Clarence-Thomas.html">NBC Washington</a>: <blockquote>ustice Thomas -- who otherwise never misses court -- skipped a SCOTUS session to speak at the graduation of his travel companions.<br /> <br />High school seniors Terrence Stephens and Jason Ankrah, star football players at Quince Orchard High School in Gaithersburg, Md., were sitting on a plane returning from a recruitment session at the University of Nebraska when they struck up a conversation with the man sitting next to them.<br /><br />Two Gaithersburg high school football players made friends with their travel companion on a recent flight back from Nebraska -- except they didn't know...<br /><br />Their seat-mate just happened to be a major Cornhuskers fan.<br /><br />When they started chatting, Stephens and Ankrah didn't have a clue they were holding court with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.<br /><br />"I was amazed this guy knew so much about us as football players and as people," said Stephens. "That was shocking. I felt honored to be known by someone of his caliber. He was just a regular old guy, sitting in coach, which really shocked me."<br /><br />By the time the plane landed, the students had figured out who Thomas was, and they promptly told their principal they wanted to invite Thomas to give the keynote speech at their high school graduation. Of course, Principal Carole Working didn't exactly think Thomas would take them up on it. But he showed up at the high school on Monday.<br /><br />"These young men had no idea who I was as I formed my first impression. I was just another stranger to them. They were wonderful ambassadors for your school and for their fellow students," said Thomas at the Quince Orchard graduation ceremony.<br /><br />When Stephens and Ankrah arrived on-stage to receive their diplomas, they were both embraced by Justice Thomas.<br /><br />Ankrah will be playing football for Nebraska next year, but Stephens will be attending Stanford. The justice said he doesn't have any hard feelings over that.<br /><br /><object id="7198" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" height="394" width="448"><param value="always" name="allowscriptaccess" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.nbcwashington.com/syndication?id=46671132&path=%2Fnews%2Flocal"/><embed src="http://www.nbcwashington.com/syndication?id=46671132&path=%2Fnews%2Flocal" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" height="394" width="448"></embed><p style="font-size:small">View more news videos at: <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/video">http://www.nbcwashington.com/video</a>.</p></object></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-79792374207389680492009-04-17T13:29:00.000-07:002009-04-17T13:30:27.961-07:00Justice Thomas Speech<a href="http://www.beinganamerican.org/files/essays/thomas_keynote.pdf">Here is a PDF</a> of his speech and Q&A session at the Bill of Rights Institute, March 31, 2009.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-72720143770293379162009-03-17T09:14:00.000-07:002009-03-27T13:15:13.913-07:00Justice Thomas Speech at Washington and LeeOn March 16, 2009. Here is the <a href="http://www.wlu.edu/media/clarence_thomas.mp3">audio</a>. <br /><br />And here are three accounts, one with a short video: <blockquote><a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/justice_thomas_americans_little_disposed_to_sacrifice_and_self-denial/">Justice Thomas: Americans Little Disposed to Sacrifice and Self-Denial</a><br /><br />By Debra Cassens Weiss<br /><br />Justice Clarence Thomas says Americans today are less willing to sacrifice during hard times, and he lays the blame on the “self indulgent, me generation” of the 1960s.<br /><br />In a speech yesterday at Washington and Lee University, Thomas recalled the messages he heard over and again as a child, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports. "Learn to do without," he was told. "Prepare for a rainy day," and "No one owes you a living."<br /><br />"These days, there seems to be little emphasis on responsibility, sacrifice and self-denial," Thomas said, according to the Times-Dispatch account. "Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice, unless it is used as a justification of taxation of others or a transfer of wealth to others."<br /><br />Thomas recalled President John F. Kennedy’s famous speech and said the words no longer ring true. “Today the message seems to be, 'Ask not what you can do for yourselves and your country, but what your country can do for you.' "<br /><br />Thomas thinks that needs to change, the Associated Press reports in its account of the speech. "Our country and our principles are more important than our individual wants," Thomas said.</blockquote><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=10012855&nav=menu368_11_9_20">Supreme Court Justice Thomas visits Washington & Lee</a><br /><br />Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn't make a lot of public appearances but he did Monday night at Washington and Lee University.<br /><br />This was a homecoming of sorts for Justice Thomas.<br /><br />He spoke at Washington and Lee before he became a Supreme Court justice and his son attended VMI back in the 90's.<br /><br />"I have nothing, but fond memories of the time I came and spent here at VMI and here in Lexington," says Justice Thomas.<br /><br />Justice Thomas touched on a number of topics during his speech inside Lee Chapel.<br /><br />He says while most Americans appreciate the constitution they don't exactly know what's in it.<br /><br />"It is at least as easy to understand that great document as it is to understand a cell phone contract," says Thomas.<br /><br />Justice Thomas also believes too many Americans expect too much from their government.<br /><br />"The message today seems more like ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you," says Thomas.<br /><br />It's not everyday you get insight into the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Thomas says justices base their decisions on what the original framers intended, not their personal opinions.<br /><br />He criticizes judges who do.<br /><br />"What restrains us from imposing our personal views and police preferences on our fellow citizens under the guise of constitutional interpretation," says Thomas.<br /><br />During a question and answer period with the audience, Thomas was asked a lot of questions.<br /><br />One dealt with whether the constitution allowed slavery.<br /><br />"I don't think there was any question slavery was constitutional. Was it moral? No. Was it wrong? Yes, but it was there," says Thomas.<br /><br />Thomas spoke to a crowd of nearly 300 people.<br /><br />He received a number of standing ovations.</blockquote><br />For now, the above story has a video report. <object id="WNVideoCanvasDEFAULTdivWNVideoCanvas" width="300" height="240"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="quality" value="high"> <param name="wmode" value="windowless"></param> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.wdbj7.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNVideoCanvas.swf"></param> <embed src="http://www.wdbj7.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNVideoCanvas.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="windowless" width="300" height="240" allowFullScreen="true" FlashVars="isShowIcon=true&affiliate=WDBJ&affiliateNumber=368&backgroundAlphas=100,100,100,100&backgroundColors=212121,676767,676767,212121&backgroundRatios=0,25,130,255&backgroundRotation=270&borderAlpha=100&borderColor=212121&borderWidth=1&clipId=3554269&playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDobject&closecaptionPaneLabelText=&closePaneLabelText=&commercialHeadlinePrefix=Commercial&controlsBackgroundAlphas=100,100&controlsBackgroundColors=212121,676767&controlsBackgroundRatios=0,255&controlsBackgroundRotation=270&controlsBorderColor=212121&controlsBottomPadding=8&controlsButtonLeftBorderColor=616161&controlsButtonRightBorderColor=232323&controlsHeight=40&controlsOffFaceColor=9c9c9c&controlsOverFaceColor=ffffff&controlsSidePadding=8&defaultStyle=dark&disableTransport=false&domId=WNVideoCanvasDS76WNWidgetVideoCanvasDS76&emailErrorBorderColor=ae1a01&emailErrorMessageFaceColor=ae1a01&emailFormFieldAlphas=80&emailFormFieldColors=212121&emailFormFieldRatios=0&emailFormFieldRotation=90&emailInputFaceColor=9c9c9c&emailMessageLabelText=&emailPaneLabelText=&emailSentConfirmationMessage=&errorMessage=&fullScreenControlType=none&hasBevel=true&hasBorder=false&hasBottomBorder=true&hasFullScreen=true&hasLeftBorder=true&hasRightBorder=true&hasTopBorder=true&helpPage=/Global/story.asp?S=4925699&hostDomain=www.wdbj7.com&idKey=DS76&imgPath=http://wdbj.images.worldnow.com/images/static/video/flash/&invalidRecipientFieldMessage=&invalidSenderFieldMessage=&isAutoStart=&isMute=&landingPage=&loadingMessage=&offFaceColor=afaeae&overFaceColor=ffffff&overlayBackgroundAlphas=92&overlayBackgroundColors=676767&overlayBackgroundRatios=0&overlayBackgroundRotation=90&overlayOffFaceColor=9c9c9c&overlayOverFaceColor=ffffff&pauseButtonText=&playAtActualSize=0&playButtonText=&playerHeight=240&playerWidth=300&recipientEmailLabelText=&sendEmailButtonText=&senderEmailLabelText=&senderNameLabelText=&shareListItemHighlightBorderColor=767676&shareListItemOffFaceColor=afaeae&shareListItemShadowBorderColor=3c3c3c&shareListListItemOverFaceColor=afaeae&sidePadding=3&smoothingMode=auto&staticImgPath=http://wdbj.images.worldnow.com&summaryGraphicMessage=&summaryGraphicScaleStyle=stretchToFit&summaryPaneLabelText=&tabBackgroundAlphas=100,100&tabBackgroundColors=888888,383838&tabBackgroundOverAlphas=100,100&tabBackgroundOverColors=595959,212121&tabBackgroundOverRatios=0,100&tabBackgroundRatios=75,255&tabBackgroundRotation=90&tabBackgroundSelectedAlphas=100&tabBackgroundSelectedBorderAlpha=100&tabBackgroundSelectedBorderColor=595959&tabBackgroundSelectedBorderWidth=1&tabBackgroundSelectedColors=595959&tabBackgroundSelectedHasBevel=true&tabBackgroundSelectedHasBorder=false&tabBackgroundSelectedHasDropShadow=true&tabBackgroundSelectedRatios=0&tabBorderAlpha=100&tabBorderColor=212121&tabBorderWidth=1&tabFontSize=10&tabHasBevel=true&tabHasBorder=false&tabHasDropShadow=true&tabHeight=26&tabLeftBorderColor=a7a6a6&tabOffFaceColor=dcdbdb&tabOverBorderAlpha=100&tabOverBorderWidth=1&tabOverFaceColor=ffffff&tabOverHasBevel=true&tabOverHasBorder=false&tabRightBorderColor=404040&tabShadowColor=333333&topPadding=3&videoSliderBackgroundColor=828282&videoSliderKnobBackgroundAlphas=100,100&videoSliderKnobBackgroundColors=828282,828282&videoSliderKnobBackgroundRatios=0,255&videoSliderKnobBackgroundRotation=90&videoSliderKnobBorderColor=5a5a5a&videoSliderKnobOffFaceColor=444444&videoSliderKnobOverFaceColor=212121&videoSliderKnobShadowColor=5a5a5a&videoSliderLoadIndicatorColor=b2b2b2&videoSliderProgressIndicatorColor=212121&volumeSliderOffColor=5a5a5a&volumeSliderOverColor=828282&" ></embed></object><br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/THOM17_20090316-222003/233326/">Americans not inclined toward sacrifice, Justice Clarence Thomas says</a><br /><br />By Rex Bowman<br /><br />Published: March 17, 2009<br /><br />LEXINGTON -- Values eroding, Thomas says 'Little emphasis' on sacrifice, self-denial, justice says at W&L<br /><br />Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a crowd at Washington and Lee University yesterday that today's Americans seem little disposed to sacrifice during hard times -- even if the government asked them to do it.<br /><br />"These days, there seems to be little emphasis on responsibility, sacrifice and self-denial," Thomas told about 300 people gathered in the Lee Chapel on campus.<br /><br />Thomas is not a frequent public speaker, but last week he spoke at Howard University, and he said he came to W&L yesterday at the request of Robin Wright, a senior from Little Rock, Ark. Wright's mother is a federal district judge in Arkansas.<br /><br />During his speech, Thomas contrasted the values Americans learned during his boyhood with today's values, which he suggested are more selfish and lead people to look too much to the government for help.<br /><br />Growing up, he said, he constantly heard, "Learn to do without," "Prepare for a rainy day" and "No one owes you a living."<br /><br />"Those truths permeated our lives," he said, so President John F. Kennedy's call for service resonated with everyone. "It all made sense."<br /><br />"Today we live in a far different environment," he said, laying the blame on the "self-indulgent 'Me' generation of the 1960s."<br /><br />"Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice, unless it is used as a justification of taxation of others or a transfer of wealth to others."<br /><br />Though Thomas mentioned no particular federal policies or politician, his criticism comes as President Barack Obama's administration is wrestling with a deepening recession and spending hundreds of billions of dollars to put people to work. Conservatives have lambasted the Obama stimulus package as a step toward socialism.<br /><br />"Today the message seems to be, 'Ask not what you can do for yourselves and your country, but what your country can do for you,'" Thomas said. <br /><br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-43589562992753874672009-03-17T09:13:00.001-07:002009-03-17T09:14:06.262-07:00Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Liberal?That's the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-thomas8-2009mar08,0,3189646,print.story">Los Angeles Times</a> headline: <blockquote>Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court liberal?<br />In a decision last week against the drug company Wyeth, it was the court's most conservative justice who most harshly criticized a Bush administration legal policy.<br />By David G. Savage<br /><br />March 8, 2009<br /><br />Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court opinion that drew the most praise last week from a proudly "progressive" constitutional law group was written by perhaps the court's staunchest conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas.<br /><br />Thomas would have gone further than the court's liberals in a decision that allowed injured patients to sue drug makers. In a 24-page concurrence, he said the court should have declared that judges have no authority to void state consumer-protection laws based on "agency musings" from Washington.<br /><br />In this instance, Thomas was referring to the musings of the George W. Bush administration and its drive to limit lawsuits against manufacturers.<br /><br />"We think Justice Thomas got it exactly right," said Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "A key part of our constitutional system is respect for the states in protecting the health and welfare of their citizens."<br /><br />Thomas has never been shy about breaking with conventional wisdom -- even when it is the conservative consensus. Over the years, he has spelled out a distinctive approach in several areas of the law. And his views do not always yield predictably conservative results.<br /><br />Four years ago, for example, the court, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority, upheld the power of federal agents to raid the homes of Californians who grow marijuana for their personal use -- legal under state law but not federal law. Thomas disagreed.<br /><br />In earlier opinions, he disputed the broad reach of federal regulatory power, a view welcomed by some business groups. In the marijuana case, Thomas repeated the same view, but this time on the side of Angel Raich, an Oakland woman who challenged the federal raids.<br /><br />"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," Thomas wrote in dissent. " . . . Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other states to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens."<br /><br />Thomas is often alone on the current court as a steady advocate of limited federal power and respect for states' authority.<br /><br />Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. are more inclined to side with federal authorities. Usually Thomas is squarely in the conservative camp with Roberts and Alito when a state's criminal laws are being challenged. He and Scalia rarely vote to limit a state's use of the death penalty.<br /><br />But in some business cases, Thomas has split from his conservative colleagues.<br /><br />The case decided last week, Wyeth vs. Levine, involved the recurring conflict between federal regulations and state liability law. Business groups -- and the Bush administration -- maintained that federal regulation of products should "preempt" or trump state laws.<br /><br />Diana Levine won a $6.7-million Vermont jury verdict after part of her arm was amputated. She said drug maker Wyeth failed to fully warn the public about the danger of injecting the anti-nausea drug Phenergan. If it mixes with arterial blood, it can cause gangrene and lead to amputation.<br /><br />The warning label said "extreme care" should be taken when injecting the drug. It did not warn against giving it by injection.<br /><br />Wyeth appealed the verdict, arguing that jurors should not be permitted to "second-guess" the federal regulators who approved the drug and its warning label.<br /><br />Roberts, Scalia and Alito agreed with Wyeth. Even if the Food and Drug Administration's decision was wrong, it should prevail, they said.<br /><br />"After today's ruling, however, parochialism may prevail," Alito wrote for the dissenters.<br /><br />The court's majority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, said Congress did not intend to take away the right of injured patients to sue drug makers. Levine's jury verdict was affirmed.<br /><br />Thomas went further and said the court should lay down a marker.<br /><br />"I have become 'increasing[ly] reluctan[t] to expand federal statutes beyond their terms through doctrines of implied preemption,' " he wrote, quoting himself in an earlier Supreme Court case.<br /><br />Unless Congress spells it out in the text of the law, Thomas said, the consumer's right to sue under state law should be protected.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-14343625671337185732008-10-24T11:56:00.000-07:002008-10-24T11:58:09.253-07:00Justice Thomas SpeechFrom a <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425512909">Georgia newspaper</a>: <blockquote><b>Justice Thomas Extols the Need to Listen</b><br /><br />The U.S. Supreme Court justice least likely to speak up during oral arguments told lawyers gathered in Atlanta on Thursday that judges should spend more time listening and less time talking.<br /><br />"I believe quite strongly we, as judges, need to take the approach we're here to solve difficult problems, not debate with lawyers," said Justice Clarence Thomas.<br /><br />Speaking on the 17th anniversary of the day he took his seat on the Supreme Court, the Georgia native delivered a wide-ranging 30-minute talk and participated in a panel discussion on professionalism at the 11th Circuit Appellate Practice Institute.<br /><br />He spoke before a crowd of about 200 at the State Bar of Georgia headquarters in Atlanta.<br /><br />Thomas said that he made 30 to 40 oral arguments before appellate courts while practicing law in Missouri, and he was always impressed by how intently the judges listened to arguments.<br /><br />"They seemed to be soaking up what I was saying," he said.<br /><br />That behavior was in stark contrast to that exhibited by members of Congress during the 60-plus Capitol Hill hearings Thomas said he attended while working at the U.S. Department of Education and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the 1980s.<br /><br />"Those hearings were different than a court hearing -- you were badgered, you were cajoled," Thomas said.<br /><br />Instead of being probative, "questions were designed for sound bites, to elicit a laugh," he added.<br /><br />Thomas also emphasized the importance of well-written briefs when dealing with any higher court. It's the brief, not the oral argument, where the heavy lifting is done, he said.<br /><br />Well-written doesn't mean long, he added.<br /><br />"Do not assume that a judge is reading only your brief this week," he said.<br /><br />"I always wrote a brief thinking: This is the last thing this judge wants to read," Thomas continued, provoking laughter from the audience.<br /><br />"We overemphasize the oral advocacy," Thomas said during a panel discussion that followed his remarks.<br /><br />"The written advocacy is far more important," he said.<br /><br />In nine of 10 cases, the position he had when leaving the bench after hearing oral arguments is the same as when he first sat down.<br /><br />"I do believe," Thomas said, "you can lose your case at oral argument."<br /><br />Still, oral arguments are essential on a broader level, Thomas said.<br /><br />"It's important for people in our society to feel they can have their say," he said.<br /><br />In response to a question from an audience member about the high court's shrinking caseload, Thomas said the Supreme Court should hear more cases each year. When he joined the Court, the justices would hear about 120 cases a session.<br /><br />"That is four cases a day. It kept you busy. It gave justices less time to ask questions."<br /><br />The Court today hears about 80 cases a year.<br /><br />Thomas emphasized civility in his remarks.<br /><br />"It's not helpful to say, 'I'm right because that person is stupid,'" said Thomas. It's important to be respectful even when disagreeing, he said. When writing a dissenting opinion, Thomas said he tells fellow justices reading his draft, "If there is anything in there that offends you, it's out."<br /><br />Not only is it unkind to disparage a fellow justice in an opinion, it is unwise.<br /><br />"If you insult them,” Thomas said, “it is very difficult in close cases to sway them."</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-75765532689120931582008-10-20T08:00:00.000-07:002008-11-25T18:52:30.241-08:00Justice Thomas Lecture at Manhattan InstituteJustice Thomas delivered the <a href="http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/wriston.htm">Wriston Lecture</a> at the Manhattan Institute in 2008. Excerpts are <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html">here</a>: <blockquote>The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday:<br /><br />When John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country," we heard his words with ears that had been conditioned to receive this message and hearts that did not resist it. We heard it surrounded by fellow citizens who had known lives of sacrifice and hardships from war, the Great Depression and segregation. All around us seemed to ingest and echo his sentiment and his words. Our country and our principles were more important than our individual wants, and by discharging our responsibilities as citizens, neighbors, and students we would make our country better. It all made sense.<br /><br />Today, we live in a far different environment. My generation, the self-indulgent "me" generation, has had a profound effect on much around us. Rarely do we hear a message of sacrifice -- unless it is a justification for more taxation and transfers of wealth to others. Nor do we hear from leaders or politicians the message that there is something larger and more important than the government providing for all of our needs and wants -- large and small. The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you.<br /><br />This brings to mind the question that seems more explicit in informed discussions about political theory and implicit in shallow political speeches. What is the role of government? Or more to the point, what is the role of our government? Interestingly, this is the question that our framers answered more than 200 years ago when they declared our independence and adopted our written Constitution. They established the form of government that they trusted would be best to preserve liberty and allow a free people to prosper. And that it has done for over two centuries. Of course, there were major flaws such as the issue of slavery, which would eventually lead to a civil war and casualties of fellow citizens that dwarf those of any of the wars that our country has since been involved in.<br /><br />Though we have amended the Constitution, we have not changed its structure or the core of the document itself. So what has changed? That is the question that I have asked myself and my law clerks countless times during my 17 years on the court.<br /><br />As I have traveled across the country, I have been astounded just how many of our fellow citizens feel strongly about their constitutional rights but have no idea what they are, or for that matter, what the Constitution says. I am not suggesting that they become Constitutional scholars -- whatever that means. I am suggesting, however, that if one feels strongly about his or her rights, it does make sense to know generally what the Constitution says about them. It is at least as easy to understand as a cell phone contract -- and vastly more important.<br /><br />The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."<br /><br />The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. So, the framers structured the Constitution to limit the powers of the national government. Its powers were specifically enumerated; it was divided into three co-equal branches; and the powers not given to the national government remained with the states and the people. The relationship between the two political branches (the executive and the legislative) was to be somewhat contentious providing checks and balances, while frequent elections would assure some measure of accountability. And, the often divergent interests of the states and the national government provided further protection of liberty behind the shield of federalism. The third branch, and least dangerous branch, was not similarly constrained or hobbled.<br /><br />Since Marbury v. Madison the federal judiciary has assumed the role of the interpreter and, now, final arbiter of our Constitution. But, what rules must judges follow in doing so? What informs, guides and limits our interpretation of the admittedly broad provisions of the Constitution? And, more directly, what restrains us from imposing our personal views and policy preferences on our fellow citizens under the guise of Constitutional interpretation?<br /><br />To assure the independence of federal judges, the framers provided us with life tenure and an irreducible salary -- though inflation has found a way around the latter. This independence, in turn, was to assure our neutrality and impartiality, which are at the very core of judging -- and being a judge. Yet, this independence can also insulate a judge from accountability for venturing beyond the proper role of a judge. But, what exactly is the proper role of a judge? We must understand that before we can praise or criticize a judge. In every endeavor from economics to games there is some way to measure performance.<br /><br />As important as our Constitution is, there is no one accepted way of interpreting it. Indeed, for some commentators, it seems that if they like or prefer a particular policy or conduct, then it must be constitutional; while the policies that they do not prefer or like are unconstitutional. Obviously, this approach cannot be right. But, it certainly is at the center of the process of selecting judges. It goes something like this. If a judge does not think that abortion is best as a matter of policy or personal opinion, then the thought is that he or she will find it unconstitutional; while the judge who thinks it is good policy will find it constitutional. Those who think this way often seem to believe that since this is the way they themselves think, everyone must be doing the same thing. In this sense, legal realism morphs into legal cynicism. Certainly this is no way to run a railroad, not to mention interpret the Constitution. . . .<br /><br />Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial.</blockquote>UPDATE: C-Span has posted the video <a href="rtsp://video1.c-span.org/60days/ac112008.rm">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-68199405675637163102008-09-26T11:06:00.000-07:002008-09-26T11:07:40.736-07:00Justice Thomas and FootballFrom the University of Georgia <a href="http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2008/09/26/Sports/Clarence.Thomas.Visits.Football.Teams.Practice-3454271.shtml">newspaper</a>: <blockquote>The football team was paid a supreme visit on Thursday as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas attended the Bulldogs' practice.<br /><br />Thomas was seen going down the elevator at the Butts-Mehre building as reporters were coming in for head coach Mark Richt's pre-practice news conference.<br /><br />"He's here, man, that fires me up," Richt said. "I just met him and that was fun. He's a very delightful man and just in the small time you're with him, you can tell he's a very humble man, considering who he is."<br /><br />Thomas will be in attendance this Saturday at Sanford Stadium when Georgia hosts Alabama. Thomas is a native of Pin Point, Ga., and is a self-proclaimed Georgia fan, even though the Bulldogs are not his No. 1 favorite.<br /><br />However, Richt would not divulge the one team Thomas likes more than Georgia.<br /><br />"He's a Georgia fan but I don't know if I should tell anyone but he has a No. 1 team ahead of Georgia. He told me not to tell anybody so I won't. But it's somebody way far away from here and in a different conference."<br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-68758169519958810072008-06-25T10:33:00.001-07:002008-06-25T10:38:21.398-07:00Wendy Long Book ReviewWendy Long, a former clerk for Justice Thomas, has <a href="http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1564/article_detail.asp">this lengthy book review</a> of several books about and by Justice Thomas. The review appears in the Claremont Review of Books. <br /><br /><blockquote>Bearing Witness<br /> <br /> <br />By Wendy E. Long<br />Posted June 23, 2008<br /><br />Books discussed in this essay:<br /><br />My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir, by Clarence Thomas<br /><br />Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, by Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher<br /><br />Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court, by Jan Crawford Greenburg<br /><br />The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006: A Conservative's Perspective, edited by Henry Mark Holzer<br /><br />First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas, by Scott Douglas Gerber<br /><br /> <br /><br />Justice Clarence Thomas introduces his memoir, My Grandfather's Son, as "the story of an ordinary man to whom extraordinary things happened." That's the only part he got wrong. As his autobiography makes clear, it is the man who is extraordinary, not the circumstances. "The freest black man in America," Shelby Steele calls him. "The greatest living American," says Bill Bennett. To these, we should add the essential American: the black man on the center stage of our public life who has dared to say he loves America, and loved her from her start, even when that love seemed painfully unrequited.<br /><br />In the 17 years since Justice Thomas took his seat on the Supreme Court, various friends, adversaries, journalists, and scholars have tried to tell his story. But, as he explains in his memoir (quoting the late William F. Buckley, Jr.), "Only the man who makes the voyage can speak truly about it." The most recent spate of books on Thomas—some released within months of his own memoir—prove to varying degrees that he and Buckley are correct. My Grandfather's Son is beautifully written, evocative, and jarring in its candor about the lowest points in his life—the bigotry he encountered, his struggles with alcohol, finances, his first marriage and divorce, the loss and rediscovery of his faith, and of course, his Senate confirmation saga. It's the full story of Thomas's life up to the moment he joins the Supreme Court. (As a sitting Justice, he can't go further and discuss matters on the Court.) <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Daddy's Son</span><br /><br />Only Thomas can really tell the story suggested by his book's title, which centers on the man who raised and molded him: his maternal grandfather, whom he called "Daddy." Myers Anderson, the relentlessly disciplined, hard-working, Catholic convert and ultimate tough-love parent—"dark, strong, proud"—was "the one hero in my life," writes Thomas. "What I am is what he made me." Thomas's biological father merely "sired" Clarence and his two siblings; their mother divorced M.C. Thomas in 1950, two years after Clarence was born. After their shanty in Pinpoint, Georgia, burned down when Thomas was six, he moved with his mother to a tenement in Savannah, which he describes as "hell": "[o]vernight I moved from the comparative safety and cleanliness of rural poverty to the foulest kind of urban squalor." Earning ten dollars per week for housekeeping, receiving zero child support, and refusing to go on welfare, Thomas's mother decided to send her sons to live with her father and his wife, who lived in a cinder block house painted a "gleaming white."<br /><br />Daddy told the boys that if they learned how to work, they could live as well as he did, and that would be their "inheritance." The boys' first job, he said, was to get a good education. "It would be too generous," Thomas writes, to call Daddy himself "semiliterate"; he "struggled mightily with the newspaper and the Bible, and once he mastered a passage of Scripture he would read it over and over again." But Daddy's self-reliance is a piece of the segregated South that liberals today like to forget. He exhorted the young Clarence to learn, keep the faith, never give up, and never mind what other people do, say, or think. His staunch refusal to view himself as a victim was summed up in his advice to Thomas to "play the hand you're dealt." The cover photograph on My Grandfather's Son shows Thomas, apparently looking at the (off camera) bust of Myers Anderson that sits in his Supreme Court chambers, bearing as its inscription one of his favorite sayings to Clarence: "Old Man Can't is dead. I helped bury him."<br /><br />In Savannah, Georgia, the boys worked every day after school and all day Saturday with Daddy in his fuel-oil delivery business, and in summers, on a farm in nearby Liberty County (where they built a four-room cinder block house with their own hands), plowing, planting, cutting wood, cleaning fish, skinning animals, killing chickens, all the while fighting off heat, gnats, flies, mosquitoes, and snakes—the last of which reappear metaphorically in the book. As a boy, Thomas learned that Georgia rattlesnakes, while deadly, at least give some advance notice of their attack. He later reflects that they were like the Southerners who were "up front about their bigotry"; at least "you knew exactly where they were coming from." Worse were the water moccasins, which strike without warning. He thinks of them when he encounters "paternalistic big-city whites" who "pretended to side with black people while using them to further their own political and social ends, turning against them when it suited their purposes."<br /><br />Daddy had converted to Roman Catholicism in 1949 (the year after Thomas was born), and faithfully brought the boys to the pre-Vatican II mass where they learned their Latin responses by heart and served as altar boys. The nuns at Catholic school taught them that "God made all men equal, that blacks were inherently equal to whites." Young Clarence learned—at the age when children can drink in such truth—that God loves him infinitely, that he was the equal in God's eyes of any other man, and that every man's rights flow from God, not from any earthly master. This, combined with Daddy's lessons in discipline, work habits, and self-denial, formed Thomas's soul. Still, when a restive Clarence once told Daddy that "slavery was over," he replied: "Not in my house."<br /><br />Later, Thomas strayed from his grandfather's principles. In the 1960s at Holy Cross, he became an angry black radical. He left the Church. When "the beast of rage...slipped its leash," or when the mounting injustices and humiliations seemed unendurable, he was consumed with anger and despair. But the story of My Grandfather's Son is how Thomas comes full circle, returning to the roots that Daddy nurtured. It is a story of incredible triumph, always tinged with the great sadness that Thomas never fully reconciled with Daddy before his death. Thomas's poignant response to this—vowing "to live my life as a memorial" to his—suggests a path for anyone who did not fully appreciate his parents until they were gone.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">High-Tech Lynching</span><br /><br />The brutal honesty of the memoir is all the more remarkable because most public figures are far more guarded in writing about themselves; their memoirs are designed to further political or other ambitions. But Thomas wrote his book to "bear witness" to what Daddy and others have done for him, to tell his story accurately and not "to leave the telling to those with careless hands or malicious hearts," and to inspire those who might identify with some part of his story and need hope, as he did, to go on. And unlike most other public figures, Thomas really can write. Literature transported his young mind beyond the segregated South while at the same time helping him to understand it. He studied Latin as a teenager and English literature in college. As an adult, his "interest in Churchill kindled a love of reading for its own sake."<br /><br />Of course, Thomas's most famous utterance was his statement before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee:<br /><blockquote>I think that this hearing should never occur in America.... And from my standpoint, as a black American...it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured, by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.</blockquote>In My Grandfather's Son, we learn how those words came together only moments before they were delivered to the Senate and the nation, as a drained Thomas lay on a couch in the dimmed light of early evening in Senator John Danforth's office. He must have been thinking, he writes, of Atticus Finch's closing argument in To Kill a Mockingbird, about how the white mob's purpose was to keep a black man in his place, when he seized Danforth's legal pad and scrawled, "HIGH-TECH LYNCHING."<br /><br />Thomas and his advisors knew any nomination that President George H.W. Bush made to the Supreme Court in 1991 was going to be highly politicized. They knew that Democratic senators, with the aid and encouragement of liberal interest groups, would try to use the confirmation hearings to "Bork" Clarence Thomas—a verb that had entered the lexicon four years earlier when the same coalition, using smears, innuendo, and outright lies, had defeated Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. But no one knew the ferocity with which liberals would attack a black man who strayed from the ideological plantation. Thomas met with board members of the NAACP—"a waste of time," he notes—and the organization, predictably, announced its opposition to his nomination quickly thereafter, "apparently at the insistence of the AFL-CIO." The NAACP "was in effect giving a green light to the various groups that opposed my nomination, tacitly assuring them that it was now all right for them to smear a black man."<br /><br />The post-nomination courtesy calls with senators revealed a similar dynamic at work. Alabama's Howell Heflin (who was commonly referred to as "courtly," but whose manner reminded Thomas of "a slave owner sitting on the porch of a plantation house") asked Thomas to return for further meetings, "but it soon became evident that his sole purpose in continuing to meet with me was to find reasons to vote against me." Bob Packwood was "direct," saying he simply could not vote for Thomas because the senator's "political career depended on support from the same women's groups that were opposing" the nomination. Al Gore said he'd vote for Thomas "if [Gore] decided not to run for President." And Fritz Hollings confessed that in order to support Thomas he'd first have to resolve "a political problem with the NAACP in his home state of South Carolina." Thomas recalls, "Strange as it may sound, I appreciated that kind of honesty" from senators who would "admit their real reasons for voting against me instead of making up some transparent excuse."<br /><br />Thomas describes hauntingly the feeling he had after five days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in which Democratic senators had "pummel[ed] me with loaded questions," including attempted traps involving abortion and natural law. Everyone assumed that the hearings were over. He had been through a political meat-grinder, and "after two and a half months of constant preparation and unrelenting attacks," he and his wife Virginia promptly left Washington to try to relax in the quiet resort town of Cape May, New Jersey. But Thomas "couldn't shake the feeling that for all the intensity of their effort, my opponents were still holding something in reserve."<br /> <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sordid Tale</span><br /><br />Having followed the humiliations and heartbreaks that had brought Thomas to this point in the book, the reader can begin to understand what it was like to be in his shoes as the events described at the beginning of the ninth chapter—aptly titled "Invitation to a Lynching"—unfolded. The same deadly farce had been played out before in the lives of others, in history and in literature, so many times, in so many ways. It had played out in smaller ways—almost rehearsals—in Thomas's own life: the childhood in the Jim Crow South, where his friends told him to let go of his "foolish dreams," because "‘[t]he man ain't goin' let you do nothin'"; the seminary, where a classmate's response to the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr.—"[t]hat's good, I hope the son of a bitch dies"—ended both Thomas's vocation to the priesthood and his "youthful innocence about race"; the devastation, after compiling a record of high achievement at Holy Cross and Yale, of finding it impossible to get a law firm job because his Ivy League degree was "tainted" by racial preference. (Finally, a young Missouri Attorney General named John Danforth hired Thomas as a staff lawyer in St. Louis. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate, Thomas followed him to Washington, where he caught the attention of the Reagan Administration.)<br /><br />It seemed unthinkable, yet at the same time all too predictable. One day, two FBI agents arrived at his house, and "started asking questions before I could close the door behind them." Did he know Anita Hill? Had he made sexual advances to her? From that moment, it was clear Thomas would have to prove a negative. He recalled Franz Kafka's The Trial: "Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning." His enemies thought they had found the perfect weapon to destroy him.<br /><br />Ironically, in preparing for his first round of confirmation hearings, Thomas had penciled in Anita Hill as a "liberal whom I could call as a witness on my behalf should it become necessary." Others have told pieces of the story before (some blatantly false), but to hear it finally from Thomas himself—it all makes sense. Hill was a liberal. Thomas knew this all along; in her first interview with him for a position at the Department of Education in 1981 (he was the assistant secretary for civil rights), she had told him that she "detested" Ronald Reagan. But Thomas's close friend Gil Hardy (a black buddy from Holy Cross) had asked him to "help a sister" who was leaving Hardy's law firm. Hill had told Thomas she could not get a recommendation from the firm because she had been sexually harassed there. So he found a way to hire her as a non-political appointee. Though her work was only "adequate," and though she had been "touchy and apt to overreact," he continued to help her, at Hardy's insistence, and allowed her to follow him in 1982 when President Reagan named him chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).<br /><br />When Thomas appointed Allyson Duncan, another black woman and "a consummate professional whose work had been consistently outstanding" as his EEOC chief of staff in 1983, Hill "stormed into" his office to protest that she had not been promoted. Hardy again pleaded with Thomas "to be patient with her." Thomas soon after saw an opening to recommend Hill as a law professor in her native Oklahoma, and she accepted. But she continued to call Thomas over the years that followed, and the last time he remembered seeing her, she insisted on driving him to the airport after a speech she'd asked him to give in Tulsa.<br /><br />Just days before the full Senate was scheduled for the final vote on Thomas's nomination, the supposedly confidential FBI report with Hill's wild allegations was leaked to the national media. In his memoir, Thomas describes meeting, via news reports,<blockquote>for the first time an Anita Hill who bore little resemblance to the woman who had worked for me at EEOC and the Education Department. Somewhere along the line she had been transformed into a conservative, devoutly religious Reagan-administration employee.... But truth was no longer relevant: keeping me off the Supreme Court was all that mattered. These pieces of her sordid tale only needed to hold up long enough to help her establish her credibility with the public. They fell away as the rest of the story gained traction in the media, just as the fuel tank and booster rockets drop away from a space shuttle once it reaches the upper atmosphere.</blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Defiance of Facts</span><br /><br />Immediately after the release of my Grandfather's Son, the national media grabbed the news hook to repeat Hill's allegations and to pronounce that the "he said, she said" remains a mystery. But a rigorous journalistic assessment of the Hill tale was nowhere to be found. A case study in this failure of critical, objective journalism is Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, released just months before Thomas's own book. Authors and Washington Post reporters Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher fail to grapple with fundamental points about the Hill tale that don't add up. In 16 years, no one has ever offered a plausible explanation why Anita Hill, a Yale-educated lawyer and avowed liberal, would leave the equivalent of a civil service job at the Department of Education to follow Clarence Thomas to the EEOC if she were being sexually harassed. No one, including Hill, has explained why she would continue to contact Thomas, repeatedly and insistently leaving telephone messages, including her hotel room number, inviting him to her law school in Oklahoma to speak, and insisting on driving him to the airport, if her allegations were true. No one has ever cited a case of sexual harassment where the plaintiff behaved as Anita Hill did following the alleged harassment. And the Senate testimony attempting to corroborate her own testimony was full of holes. Susan Hoerchner, Hill's main witness, had a record of liberal activism and, when interviewed by Senate staffers, contradicted Hill's testimony as to when the alleged harassment took place. Hill's attorney, who was also advising Hoerchner, called for a break when the discrepancy emerged. After the break, Hoerchner had a "failure of memory" that became her storyline at the hearings. Hill gave the FBI the names of two other employees who she said would corroborate her story. Neither did.<br /><br />Of the three women who provided statements supporting Hill, Thomas had fired two of them for poor job performance and had declined to reappoint the third after she failed the bar exam. The overwhelming number of professional women who worked side-by-side with Clarence Thomas over the years, including pro-choice women, Democrats, liberals, and feminists, said Hill's story was flatly inconsistent with what they knew of him. Pam Talkin, Thomas's EEOC chief of staff, testified that her boss<blockquote>was adamant that the women in the office be treated with dignity and respect. And his own behavior towards women was scrupulous. There was never a hint of impropriety, and I mean a hint. Never a gesture, never a look, never a word, never body language. None of these things that we women have a sixth sense about.</blockquote>Talkin and the other women who testified similarly before the Senate committee were not allowed to do so until 2 o'clock in the morning.<br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">A Man of Principle</span><br /><br />Merida and Fletcher try to paint Thomas as a tormented figure, "uncomfortable" in both the "white world" and the "black world." They tout the countless interviews and original research they conducted to figure out which is the "real" Clarence Thomas: the "magnetic" figure who strikes up friendships wherever he goes, the "ideological" figure who is a "hero of the conservative right," or the "despised" figure who is a traitor to his race and to liberal ideals, a sellout, an Uncle Tom.<br /><br />Although the first two portraits are true to different degrees, Merida and Fletcher clearly favor the third, and they twist every opportunity to portray Thomas as an Uncle Tom who, among other things, schemed to get on the Supreme Court, even lying to civil rights groups about his views. This assertion, like so many in their book, flies in the face of fact: for more than a decade, Thomas had hidden his views from no one, and battled not only with the civil rights establishment but with his fellow Reagan Administration officials.<br /><br />Supreme Discomfort's snide, breathless tone may be gathered from tabloid excesses like this: "Even in his cloistered, rarefied world as a member of the most important judicial body in existence, Thomas will always be black and he knows it." Such statements are embarrassing, not only for two black journalists, but particularly when held up against the depth and nuance expressed in My Grandfather's Son.<br /><br />Because the authors of Supreme Discomfort are so wedded to their "Uncle Tom" thesis, they latch onto the liberal establishment line that although Thomas was the beneficiary of affirmative action all his life, now that he's climbed to the top of the heap he has pulled up the rope behind him, and would deny the same advantage to other blacks. Yet they acknowledge that "race did not appear to play a role in Thomas's acceptance to Holy Cross" and that "Yale officials cannot say whether Thomas would have been admitted to the prestigious law school without affirmative action" because by the time he was admitted, the university had refined its affirmative action efforts, admitting minority applicants only if it believed they could do the work and thrive at Yale. Interestingly, this goes precisely to Thomas's criticism of affirmative action as it came to be practiced more broadly in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s: that it resulted in minority students being accepted into schools and environments where they could not thrive, just in order to satisfy grand theories about minority admissions or to provide a "diverse" environment that would somehow enhance the white folks' experience, irrespective of the effect it would have on the minority students.<br /><br />Merida and Fletcher also repeat the canard that Thomas is a "flunky" of Justice Antonin Scalia, even as Thurgood Marshall was dismissed as the "lackey" of Justice William Brennan. Neither Marshall nor Thomas has ever been regarded as an "intellectual force," they say—though they are careful not to make that assertion themselves (instead invoking the frequently unattributed, unfootnoted comments of others). They note that both pairs of Justices voted together 90% of the time, and smugly conclude, "no one has ever suggested that Scalia and Brennan followed the lead of their black brethren."<br /><br />By lumping Thomas and Marshall together in this way, they make the truth more difficult to untangle. On the other hand, they insulate Marshall from justifiable criticism, twisting and mischaracterizing facts to obscure the claim's absurdity with respect to Thomas. The fact is, Marshall did follow Brennan, "consistently and predictably," as Supreme Court historian Henry Abraham, among others, has noted. Marshall was not the only—though probably the most reliable—Justice whom Brennan mustered to create many of the 5-4 majorities whose decisions live in the annals of judicial activism. On the other hand, Scalia, unlike the diplomat Brennan, frequently writes only for himself and, while Scalia is renowned for many things, coalition-building is not one of them. He and Thomas have come out on opposite sides of important constitutional cases, such as First Amendment protection for anonymous political speech, forfeiture of cash under the Eighth Amendment's "excessive fines" clause, and the wholly intrastate, medical use of cannabis as permitted by state law. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Scalia invoked Blackstone and English common law to argue that the president did not have the power to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi; Thomas instead analyzed the issue in light of the principles of executive power outlined in The Federalist, concluding that such military decisions of the commander-in-chief can't be second-guessed by the Court.<br /><br />And even when Scalia and Thomas agree on the outcome, they sometimes employ separate reasoning, writing their own dissents and concurrences, as Thomas did in United States v. Lopez (1995), in which he called into question the Court's precedents holding that Congress can legislate not only to regulate commerce "among the several States," as the Constitution prescribes, but also in areas where there is merely a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. Another example: although both Scalia and Thomas have dissented from the misguided line of cases holding public expressions of religion to violate the Constitution, only Thomas has explained the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as the framers understood it, as a "federalism provision" that "protects state establishments from federal interference." Overall, Thomas is more willing than Scalia to reexamine flawed precedents and return straight to the Constitution's text and principles. In the words of one legal scholar, "when it comes to enumerated federal powers," only Thomas is "willing to put the mandate of the Constitution above his...own views of either policy or what would make a better constitution than the one enacted." No one ever said that about Thurgood Marshall.<br /><br /> <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Quiet Conviction</span><br /><br />Fortunately, another journalist—one with legal training, unlike Merida and Fletcher—has taken the time to investigate the charge that Thomas merely follows Scalia. Jan Crawford Greenburg, a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and an ABC News legal correspondent, researched the papers of the late Justice Harry Blackmun and conducted scores of interviews of the law clerks present during Thomas's early terms on the Court. Her book, Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the Supreme Court, shatters the myth that Thomas follows Scalia's lead. It goes even deeper than the refutations already provided on this point by other authors, such as journalist Ken Foskett, Thomas biographer Andrew Peyton Thomas (no relation), and law professor Scott Gerber. Greenburg's research reveals that Thomas was a powerful, independent voice on the Court, with his own thoughts about the Constitution and judging that diverged in significant respects from Scalia's.<br /><br />For example, Greenburg reveals that at Thomas's very first conference (the meeting where the Justices exchange views, in order of seniority, on the cases argued that day), the Justices unanimously agreed in Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) that a Louisiana law was unconstitutional in allowing the state to confine to a mental institution an inmate found not guilty by reason of insanity, after doctors concluded he was no longer insane. But the next day, Thomas went to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and said he would be the lone dissenter. When Thomas circulated his written dissent to the Court, Rehnquist and Scalia quickly switched their votes and joined him, persuaded by his argument that Foucha had no constitutional right to be released even if it made sense as a policy matter. Justice Anthony Kennedy switched his vote, too, though he wrote his own dissent. The case, which was unanimous before Thomas spoke up, was decided 5-4.<br /><br />Almost immediately, Thomas again was the sole dissenter. In Hudson v. McMillian (1992), a prisoner had been beaten by guards and claimed he had been subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Blackmun's notes reflect the shock in the conference at Thomas's lone position. But when Thomas circulated his dissent, arguing that a prison guard's actions, however wrong, are not the equivalent of official punishment meted out by the state, Scalia promptly switched his vote, persuaded again by the force of Thomas's reasoning.<br /><br />Thomas has often been criticized for not speaking during oral argument, when other Justices interrupt each other and pepper the lawyers with questions. Incredibly, Merida and Fletcher devote an entire chapter, "Silent Justice," to this subject, surveying at seemingly endless length everyone from high school students visiting the Supreme Court to former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried. Thomas has explained publicly, more than once, that there are very few questions that need to be asked once a Justice has done a thorough job reading all the briefs in the case. Almost all of the questioning is for sport among the Justices, or to put on a show for the media.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"> <br />View of the Founding</span><br /><br />In the chapter on Marshall and Thomas, Supreme Discomfort touches upon the most significant difference between the only two black Supreme Court Justices in our nation's history. Marshall believed that the Constitution "was defective from the start" because it permitted slavery and did not allow women to vote. In 1987, as America celebrated the Constitution's bicentennial, Marshall asserted that the American Founders<blockquote>could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. We the people no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of liberty, justice, and equality, and who strived to better them.</blockquote>In other words, the credit belongs not to the founders, but to Marshall and to others like him.<br /><br />Thomas was "chief among the condemners" of Marshall's bicentennial speech, according to Merida and Fletcher. The authors defend Marshall, insisting that he "spent considerable time thinking his speech over" and "ran it by renowned historian John Hope Franklin, who...wrote the mega-best-selling history of African Americans, From Slavery to Freedom." But the fact that Marshall had put so much thought into the speech—that it was not an off-the-cuff statement of an aging justice—only makes clearer that Marshall detested and misunderstood the American Founding.<br /><br />The condemnation of the founding as defective for its treatment of blacks and women is not unique to Marshall; perhaps its most vehement recent expressions belong to Barack Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And Obama's own campaign stump line, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," means essentially what Marshall said: the founders got it wrong, but we enlightened liberals are fixing things up.<br /><br />The contrast to Clarence Thomas's view could not be more stark. Thomas describes in My Grandfather's Son how he deliberately set out, beginning in 1986 as chairman of the EEOC, to explore with Claremont Institute scholars Ken Masugi and John Marini "the natural-law philosophy with which the Declaration of Independence, America's first founding document, is permeated." Recounting the tutorials of some 20 years ago, Thomas writes,<blockquote> if all men are created equal, then no man can own another man, and we can only be governed by our consent. How, then, could a country founded on those principles have permitted slavery and segregation to exist? The answer was that it couldn't—not without being untrue to its own ideals.</blockquote><br />If Thurgood Marshall and his ilk had had their way—if the North had refused to compromise with slavery in 1787, if the Three-Fifths Clause had never been written—no United States would have existed, and slavery could never have been put, as Lincoln said, "on the course of ultimate extinction." Thomas explains:<blockquote> The Founders made the political judgment that, given the circumstances at the time, the best defense of the Constitution's principles and, ironically, the most beneficial course for the slaves themselves was to compromise with slavery while, at the same time, establishing a union that, at its root, was devoted to the principle of human equality.</blockquote><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Other Opinions</span><br /><br />In his newly revised and expanded book, The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006: A Conservative's Perspective, Brooklyn Law School professor emeritus Henry Mark Holzer provides a sympathetic, indeed reverential, take on the Justice's official oeuvre, but unfortunately the book at times appears to reflect more of Holzer's views than Thomas's. To his credit, Holzer characterizes the Constitution as implementing the Declaration, but he makes some dubious statements that surely should not be attributed to Thomas, such as that the principles of the Declaration "were virtually unknown in the history of man." Thomas himself has discussed the natural rights of life, liberty, and property in the thought of John Locke and others upon whom the founders drew. The book does contain excerpts from many of Thomas's most constitutionally significant cases, but the choice of excerpts is narrow, and the editing diminishes them further, as does the analysis (or lack of it). The reader would be better advised simply to read Thomas's opinions for himself.<br /><br />A more scholarly and complete book examining Thomas's Supreme Court opinions is Scott Gerber's First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas. First published in 1999 as a review of Thomas's first five terms on the Court, it was expanded and republished in 2002. Gerber, a professor of law at Ohio Northern University, calls himself a "classical liberal" and undertakes a truly dispassionate study, taking pains to avoid weighing in either for or against Thomas's work. He avoids the term "Justice Thomas's judicial philosophy," which is fitting, because, as Thomas himself explains in his memoir, at the time of his nomination "I didn't have one."<br /><br />Thomas still resists the idea that he has a "judicial philosophy." He just does his best to decide cases on the bases of the Constitution's text and principles and the laws enacted by the branches of government accountable to the "consent of the governed." Quoting Thomas's Senate testimony and speeches, Gerber takes the time to explain the Justice's stance, better labeled "judicial neutrality." Thomas articulated more fully, and several years earlier, the same posture of judicial neutrality for which John Roberts won so much acclaim at his own Senate confirmation hearings in 2005, when he described a judge as an "umpire" in a ball game. As Thomas put it,<blockquote> If we are to be a nation of laws and not of men, judges must be impartial referees who are willing at times to defend constitutional principles from attempts by different groups, parties, or the people as a whole, to overwhelm them in the name of expediency.... A judge does not look to his or her sex or racial, social, or religious background when deciding a case.... [A] person must attempt to exorcise himself or herself of the passions, thoughts, and emotions that fill any frail human being.... Otherwise, he is not a judge, but a legislator, for whom it is entirely appropriate to consider personal or group interests.</blockquote><br /><br />Gerber's balanced, scholarly study should be reprised, and soon—taking into account not only Thomas's opinions of the past five years, but also his memoir and Greenburg's research in the meantime. It would be even better if Gerber, or someone else, would produce a compendium and analysis of Thomas's opinions based not on standard legal categories such as "federalism" and "civil rights," but on the themes that emerge from his defense of the Constitution over the last 16 years on the Court: themes such as the necessity of good education for the success of the American regime of self-government, and the idea that the right to keep the property that one has earned by the sweat of one's brow is a first and fundamental freedom.<br /><br />Thomas has said that the Justice's job of protecting the Constitution and the principles that underlie it "is not a game of cute phrases and glib remarks in important documents" but rather is a "deadly serious business." Whether the American experiment in self-government endures will depend, in large part, upon whether the Constitution can be preserved against the depredations of judicial activism. And that, in turn, just might depend upon whether the principles outlined in the opinions of Justice Clarence Thomas continue to persuade members of the Supreme Court and his fellow citizens.<br /><br />"I've never doubted the greatness of a country in which a person like me could travel all the way from Pinpoint to Capitol Hill," Thomas writes. My Grandfather's Son is an amazing tale that can embolden us all as we face the hardest moments in life, and give us hope for the future of our country and her principles.<br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-80288238597564086652008-05-30T16:03:00.001-07:002008-05-30T16:05:24.518-07:00Justice Thomas Graduation SpeechFrom the <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/may/30/thomas-inspires-boys-school-grads/">Washington Times</a>: <blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Thomas inspires boys school grads<br />Justice speaks to class of 18</span><br />David C. Lipscomb THE WASHINGTON TIMES<br />Friday, May 30, 2008<br /><br /><br />It was no ordinary occurrence for no ordinary students at no ordinary school.<br /><br />Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - accustomed to commanding audiences of thousands at major universities - instead delivered a commencement address last night for 18 graduating middle-school boys at the highly regarded Washington Jesuit Academy in Northeast.<br /><br />Washington Jesuit is a tuition-free private boarding school for underprivileged but academically promising youths run by the Jesuits - an influential order of Catholic priests legendary for centuries of educational excellence. Inspired academic instruction is but one feature of a boy's life at the school.<br /><br />Within Washington Jesuit's walls, at least, character counts, and it showed in the eighth-graders' polite demeanor last night.<br /><br />"It is truly up to each of you to decide what type of building block you will become with your actions," Justice Thomas told the class of primarily black students during his speech.<br /><br />Like his audience, Justice Thomas came up the hard way - raised in impoverished Pin Point, Ga., and abandoned by his father - but he benefited mightily from a Jesuit education at Holy Cross College. The former seminarian was nominated to the court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.<br /><br />Allison Shelley/The Washington Times Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas meets with the graduating class at Washington Jesuit Academy, including (from left) Demitrius McNeil, Marcus Cain and Olushola Shokunbi. Demitrius, 14, said he could relate to Justice Thomas' rise from poverty.<br /><br />He was sworn in after perhaps the most bitter Supreme Court confirmation fight in memory. A former head of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he is the only black on the court.<br /><br />"Remember that life is not easy for any of us, it probably won't be fair and it certainly isn't all about you," he said. "The gray hair and wrinkles you see on older people have been earned the hard way."<br /><br />The students wore navy sport coats, white and green barber-striped ties and khakis. They gave firm handshakes and made eye contact as they spoke with Justice Thomas about their plans for high school, college and life.<br /><br />The justice returned the gestures and encouraged each boy with firm pats and a few words such as "congratulations" and "don't stop now."<br /><br />"It's an honor [to meet the justice]. It's very inspiring that he got past segregation," said valedictorian Airton Kamdem, 14, of Silver Spring. Airton will attend Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda for high school.<br /><br />"It's a pleasure," said Demitrius McNeil, 14, of Fairfax. "I grew up in a bad neighborhood so I can relate [to Justice Thomas]. It's about making something out of your life." Demitrius will go to Gonzaga College High School in Northwest this fall.<br /><br />Justice Thomas praised the school for helping prepare academically promising but underprivileged students for the time when they will enter a more competitive collegiate environment, up against students born with more advantages.<br /><br />"When I was coming up, there was a problem with throwing young people into the fire on the collegiate level without preparing them ... they can't win," he said. "In this situation, they now can win."<br /><br />The school, which is near Catholic University, was founded in 2002 and helps the boys succeed with small class sizes, 12-hour school days and an 11-month school year.<br /><br />The academy says only about 11 percent of its students enter the school reading at their grade level, but 95 percent of them graduate doing so. The school also boasts double-digit improvements in students' standardized tests scores after two years.<br /><br />There are only 38 alumni, but all are in high school and nearly all are in college preparatory programs.<br /><br />School President William B. Whitaker said the speech was important to the students because Justice Thomas' life shows that anyone can achieve greatness.<br /><br />"A lot the boys think they can't, they won't," Mr. Whitaker said. "But we try to encourage them and say 'you can, you will and you should.'<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilFMp-HO46WLtuanixQdodFrnDAD-ZABgjYA-lNIpLJK6pSbDCSy8AioK-PlOoLGjyJ_1NF4uL8u__DAcyeaCf3vxxHHB-cfQ3AxLg73POvghUBm01VmbgerExvOOy5UJnYZxFx7fKVPcN/s1600-h/Justice+Thomas,+5-2008.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilFMp-HO46WLtuanixQdodFrnDAD-ZABgjYA-lNIpLJK6pSbDCSy8AioK-PlOoLGjyJ_1NF4uL8u__DAcyeaCf3vxxHHB-cfQ3AxLg73POvghUBm01VmbgerExvOOy5UJnYZxFx7fKVPcN/s320/Justice+Thomas,+5-2008.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5206310786526847634" /></a><small>Allison Shelley/The Washington Times Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas meets with the graduating class at Washington Jesuit Academy, including (from left) Demitrius McNeil, Marcus Cain and Olushola Shokunbi. Demitrius, 14, said he could relate to Justice Thomas' rise from poverty.</small></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-91313707582784968762008-05-12T07:46:00.000-07:002008-05-12T07:55:50.349-07:00Justice Thomas Speaks at UGAFrom <a href="http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/051108/uganews_20080511051.shtml">Online Athens</a>: <blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Thomas tells grads of goal blocked by injustice</span><br />By Blake Aued <br />Sunday, May 11, 2008<br /><br />U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the fifth Georgian to serve on the high court, would have been the first black University of Georgia graduate if he'd had his way.<br /><br />Thomas wanted to be a Bulldog, but segregation stopped him, he said Saturday during his commencement address at Sanford Stadium.<br /><br />"Forty-one years ago, when I graduated from high school in Savannah, attending the University of Georgia was not an option," he said. "Thankfully, much has changed in my lifetime. Knowing what I know today, I would go to school here in a heartbeat. Georgia is home, and Georgia is where I belong."<br /><br />. . . <br /><br />He credited his grandparents, relatives and friends - farmers, yard workers and maids, mostly - in his native Pin Point for raising him right.<br /><br />"They went along with their lives doing their best with what they had, knowing all the while that this was not necessarily fair," he said. "They played the hand they were dealt, and through it all, they were unfailingly good, decent and kind people, whose unrequited love for our great country and hope for our future were shining examples for all of us to emulate in our own struggles."<br /><br />The controversial justice spurned politics, jurisprudence and the usual lofty rhetoric of commencement speakers. Instead, he praised old-fashioned virtues like faith, gratitude, honesty, discipline, politeness, punctuality and sincerity.<br /><br />"Look, many have been angry at me because I refuse to be angry, bitter or full of grievances, and some will be angry at you for not becoming agents of their most recent cynical causes," he said. "Don't worry about it. No monuments are ever built to cynics."<br /><br />Thomas recalled when the socialist writer Michael Harrington spoke at his own commencement in 1971. But Thomas said he was more worried at the time about paying off his student loans and his upcoming wedding than about Harrington's message.<br /><br />"He seemed to be exhorting us on to solve the problems of poverty and injustice," Thomas said. "As important as that was, I, like most people sitting here today, was focused on solving my own problems, so I would not become a problem for or a burden to others."<br /><br />Some faculty and students criticized UGA President Michael Adams' selection of Thomas to deliver the commencement address. About 1,200 people signed an online petition opposing the choice. Thomas was accused of sexual harassment during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearings, and a rash of harassment scandals has plagued UGA lately.<br /><br />But he received a standing ovation Saturday, and graduates said his speech's humor and homespun wisdom resonated with them.<br /><br />"A lot of the things he said are the same things my mother and auntie say all the time," psychology and pre-med major LaKeithia Glover said.<br /><br />. . . <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk0pHCYgt6YaDK9u8oxDaLtw8OJ2m8j5kTL588dIN9buCS5vNnWfBTxgmOe2ENlO4cuz3hWDRXWcZWyeY4H7miURh-R9tD4rg9T9TdxK5-NWuaobM_bZZ_jdRBktnnDIHDtT6SiDtgN_Jr/s1600-h/32514_512.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk0pHCYgt6YaDK9u8oxDaLtw8OJ2m8j5kTL588dIN9buCS5vNnWfBTxgmOe2ENlO4cuz3hWDRXWcZWyeY4H7miURh-R9tD4rg9T9TdxK5-NWuaobM_bZZ_jdRBktnnDIHDtT6SiDtgN_Jr/s320/32514_512.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5199503818262577922" /></a><small>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, left, shares a laugh Saturday with University of Georgia President Michael Adams during commencement ceremonies in Sanford Stadium.</small></blockquote>From the <a href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/05/11/uga.html">Atlanta Journal-Constitution</a>: <blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Thomas gives grads familiar advice</span><br /><br />By Jeffry Scott<br />The Atlanta Journal-Constitution<br />Published on: 05/11/08<br /><br />Athens —- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the commencement speaker before the 2008 graduating class of the University of Georgia, said when he graduated from high school 41 years ago, attending UGA "was not an option" because schools in the state were still largely segregated.<br /><br />But then Thomas, who grew up in Pin Point, outside Savannah, told the approximately 3,500 graduating students gathered on the field at Sanford Stadium on Saturday that he was happy to be back at the school, where he gave the law school commencement address in 2003.<br /><br />"Georgia is my home," he said. "Georgia is where I belong."<br /><br />In recent weeks the UGA administration had come under criticism from some faculty members for inviting Thomas, because of allegations of sexual harassment brought against him 17 years ago during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate.<br /><br />There were no fireworks Saturday, either outside the ceremony —- where there were no protests —- nor in the text of his address, which was heavy on chestnuts of wisdom such as "I urge you to do the best to be your best."<br /><br />Thomas, who seldom gives interviews and has been criticized for not asking questions from the bench —- he once went two years and sat in on 142 cases in the Supreme Court without speaking in the courtroom —- seemed uncomfortable straying from his prepared text.<br /><br />At least twice he misread what was written, and doubled back to correct himself. But he was offering wisdom, not inspiration.<br /><br />"The rewards of self-indulgence are not nearly as great as the rewards of self-discipline," he told the students.<br /><br />He spoke highly of the lessons his grandparents taught him and how only in his later years he has come to realize the value of those lessons.<br /><br />He recalled how 30 years ago a janitor who worked in the U.S. Senate saw Thomas was troubled and pulled him aside to tell him he needed to be strong and unselfish to benefit others.<br /><br />"He told me 'Son, you cannot give what you do not have,' " Thomas said.<br /><br />When he left the podium, Thomas, who spoke for 22 minutes, received a standing ovation.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-29089806808523613262008-05-05T06:56:00.000-07:002008-05-05T06:58:19.687-07:00Faculty Embarrass ThemselvesAt the University of Georgia. See <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2008/04/23/georgia-faculty-criticize-clarence-thomas-visit.html">here</a>: <blockquote>As is the case with most conservative speakers at those pesky liberal bastions (aka colleges), the choice of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the University of Georgia's commencement speaker has inspired a "reaction that ranges from surprise to infuriation," the Red and Black reports. "Many would consider him a divisive figure because of his voting record and the past allegations of sexual harassment with Anita Hill," said a psychology professor.<br /><br />The speaker announcement caps a year of sexual harassment scandals on the Georgia campus (three professors have resigned since September because of sexual harassment complaints). But it also comes at a time when faculty members believe the school has made progress on the issue. "What a slap in the face this is to everyone who has been working to bring to light the realities of sexual harassment at [the university]," said the women's studies director.</blockquote>The President of the University of Georgia <a href="http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/2008/04/24/adamsed_0425.html">defends</a> the choice to invite Justice Thomas: <blockquote>Clarence Thomas: Suitable speaker at UGA? Yes<br /><br />By MICHAEL F. ADAMS<br />Published on: 04/25/08<br /><br />The University of Georgia has never had, and will never have, I hope, a political litmus test for the speakers who appear at commencement or other events. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has been generous and gracious with his time and in his support of UGA. In 2006, he spoke at the Blue Key banquet here and received the Blue Key Service Award. At the invitation of Dean David Shipley, he spoke at the School of Law's commencement ceremony in 2003. He has lectured in both the law school and the Honors program, and has given hours of his time in his Washington office to talk with UGA Foundation Fellows.<br /><br />He has been very helpful to UGA law students who have aspirations to clerk in the Supreme Court. He has also joined me in Sanford Stadium to cheer on the Bulldogs.<br /><br />As a native Georgian, Justice Thomas has honored his home state with his service on the Supreme Court, and we are honored that he accepted the invitation to speak at commencement. He is welcome on this campus anytime, as is any other sitting or former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.<br /><br />The tradition of free and open discourse on a university campus is one of the fundamental tenets undergirding all that we do in academe. It is important for our students to hear a wide variety of voices and reach their own conclusions about the important issues of the day. Last year, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer participated in the three-day retrospective on the 30th anniversary of the inauguration of Jimmy Carter. Just last month, we welcomed five former secretaries of state for a round-table discussion sponsored by the School of Law and the School of Public and International Affairs; two of them served Democratic presidents and three served in Republican administrations.<br /><br />On a single day in April 2006, we hosted former President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, who participated in the dedication of the Coverdell Center, and former Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat, who was campaigning for the presidency.<br /><br />The roster of recent commencement speakers demonstrates a variety of points of view, as it should. We have hosted Georgia governors of both parties; Ted Turner; Time Magazine Editor in Chief John Huey; U.S. Sens. Phil Gramm, Zell Miller and Saxby Chambliss; U.S Rep. Sanford Bishop; and Clark Atlanta University President Walter Broadnax.<br /><br />At a large academic institution, opinions will always differ regarding the choice of commencement speaker, but each of us should remember that graduation day is a day for the students, those who have completed their academic work and are looking forward to careers or graduate school.<br /><br />Commencement is truly a grand, celebratory occasion at the University of Georgia, and our focus on May 10 in Sanford Stadium will be on the accomplishments of the 4,000-plus bright undergraduates who will graduate that morning.<br /><br />Michael F. Adams is president of the University of Georgia. </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-77745843617842931312008-05-05T06:55:00.000-07:002008-05-05T06:56:31.728-07:00Commencement Speech at High Point UniversityAn <a href="http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080504/NRSTAFF/595513448">article</a>: <blockquote> Supreme Court justice speaks at HPU commencement<br />By Nancy H. McLaughlin<br />Staff Writer<br />Sunday, May. 4, 2008 3:00 am<br /><br />HIGH POINT — If Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas were to package Saturday's commencement speech at High Point University into an inspirational book about learning everything needed for life, he could call it "Those old folks are right."<br /><br />"Good manners will open doors that nothing else will open," Thomas told graduates seated on the manicured lawn of the private college. More than 600 diplomas were awarded on a morning fraught with sporadic wind bursts heavy enough to upend stacks of printed programs.<br /><br />Other advice from Thomas: "Remember the rewards of self-indulgence are not nearly as great as the rewards of self-discipline. Remember that life is not easy and probably will not be fair."<br /><br />"When I was younger and acted as though I knew everything, the older people knew better. ... The older I have gotten, the smarter they have become," said Thomas, who became a jurist of the country's highest court when most of the HPU graduates had not even begun first grade.<br /><br />"Chief among those who have grown in stature is my grandfather, who seemed small and irrelevant when I sat where you sit," Thomas said of his own graduation day.<br /><br />"Today, he is the greatest man I've ever known."<br /><br />. . . <br /><br />In his remarks, Thomas would go on to describe a life shaped by faith, discipline and the power of positive thinking.<br /><br />"I was 9 years old when I met my father," Thomas said. "The point is not to complain, but rather to say: Just because it starts a certain way doesn't mean it has to end that way."<br /><br />. . . </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-37392222063724988992008-04-19T17:34:00.000-07:002008-04-19T17:35:24.436-07:00Justice Thomas to Speak at University of GeorgiaFrom <a href="http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/041908/uganews_2008041900900.shtml">Athens, Georgia</A>: <blockquote>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas will return to the University of Georgia next month to deliver the address at the university's undergraduate commencement exercise.<br /><br />Thomas, 59, was the commencement speaker for the UGA School of Law in 2003, and also has addressed the UGA Blue Key Awards Banquet and visited with students and faculty in the law school.<br /><br />Thomas, who has been on the Supreme Court for 16 years, will be the main speaker at the May 10 commencement, which is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in Sanford Stadium. If the weather is bad, UGA will split the graduation into two ceremonies, at 9:30 and 11:30 a.m., and move them into Stegeman Coliseum.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-60878756758387236212008-03-22T11:19:00.000-07:002008-03-22T11:21:34.068-07:00Wall Street Journal InterviewThe Wall Street Journal has an <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120614142302256093.html">interview</a> with Justice Thomas: <blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Clarence Thomas<br />Mr. Constitution</span><br /><br />By DAVID B. RIVKIN and LEE A. CASEY<br />March 22, 2008; Page A25<br /><br />Clarence Thomas leaps from his chair. He retrieves a wire coat hanger from his closet for a demonstration -- the same demonstration he gives his law clerks. He bends it and says: "How do you compensate? So, you say well, deal with it. Bend this over here. Oh, wait a minute, bend it a little bit there. And you're saying that it throws everything out of whack. What do you do?"<br /><br />He holds up a twisted wire, useless now for its original purpose and the point is made. "If you notice sometimes I will write just to point out that I think that we've gone down a track that's going to cause some distortion, then it's quite precisely because of that. I don't do things that I think are illegitimate in other areas, just to bend it back to compensate for what's already happened."<br /><br /><br />Interpreting the Constitution is the Supreme Court's most important and most difficult task. An even harder question is how to approach a Constitution that, in fact, is no longer in pristine form -- with the Framers' design having been warped over the years by waves of judicial mischief. There is an obvious temptation to redress the imbalance, which Associate Justice Thomas decisively rejects. Thus his coat hanger metaphor.<br /><br />So is the most controversial Supreme Court justice an "originalist" when it comes to Constitutional interpretation? He says he doesn't like labels, though he does admit to being a "meat and potatoes" kind of guy.<br /><br />Upon entering his spacious office overlooking the Capitol Dome in Washington, D.C., the first thing to catch your eye is his Nebraska Cornhuskers screen saver. Mr. Thomas never attended the University of Nebraska, or even lived in the state. He's just a fan. His office is also decorated with pictures of the historical figures he admires, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Booker T. Washington, Thomas More and Winston Churchill, and he speaks of them with knowledge and passion. Watching over all is a bust of his grandfather atop Mr. Thomas's bookcase -- its countenance as stern as a Roman consul. There is little doubt this man was the driving force in Mr. Thomas's life -- a fact he confirms, and which is reflected in the title of his recently published memoir, "My Grandfather's Son."<br /><br />Mr. Thomas faced one of the most destructive and personally vicious Supreme Court confirmation hearings in American history -- described at the time by Mr. Thomas himself as a "high-tech lynching." Mr. Thomas's opponents smeared his character and integrity. To this day, disappointed and embittered, they feel entitled to insult his qualifications, intelligence and record.<br /><br />In 2004, when Mr. Thomas's name was floated as a possible replacement for ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called him an "embarrassment" to the Court, and attacked his opinions as "poorly written."<br /><br />In point of fact, Mr. Thomas's opinions are well-written, displaying a distinctive style -- a sure sign that the Justice and not his clerks does most of the writing.<br /><br />As for his judicial philosophy, "I don't put myself in a category. Maybe I am labeled as an originalist or something, but it's not my constitution to play around with. Let's just start with that. We're citizens. It's our country, it's our constitution. I don't feel I have any particular right to put my gloss on your constitution. My job is simply to interpret it."<br /><br />In that process, the first place to look is the document itself. "And when I can't find something in that document or in the tradition or history around that document, then I am getting on dangerous ground. Because that's when you drift so much more towards your own policy preferences."<br /><br />It is the insertion of those policy preferences into the interpretive process that Mr. Thomas finds particularly illegitimate. "People can say you are an originalist, I just think that we should interpret the Constitution as it's drafted, not as we would have drafted it."<br /><br />Mr. Thomas acknowledges that discerning a two-hundred-year-old document's meaning is not always easy. Mistakes are possible, if not inevitable, as advocates of a malleable "living constitution," subject to endless judicial revision, never tire of pointing out. "Of course it's flawed" agrees Mr. Thomas, "but all interpretive models are flawed."<br /><br />Simply following your own preferences is both flawed and illegitimate, he says. "But if that is difficult, does that difficulty legitimate just simply watching your own preference?" By doing that "I haven't cleared up the problem, I've simply trumped it with my personal preferences."<br /><br />Mr. Thomas has also been criticized for his supposed lack of respect for precedent. Even his fellow conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia, was reported by a Thomas biographer to have claimed that Mr. Thomas just doesn't believe in "stare decisis." Latin for "let the decision stand," stare decisis is an important aspect of the Anglo-American system of precedent -- deciding new cases based on what the courts have done before and leaving long established rules in place.<br /><br />Mr. Thomas, however, is less absolute here than his critics suggest. He understands the Supreme Court can't simply erase decades, or even centuries, of precedent -- "you can't do it."<br /><br />At the same time, he views precedent with respect, not veneration. "You have people who will just constantly point out stare decisis, stare decisis, stare decisis . . . then it is one big ratchet. It is something that you wrestle with." History would seem to vindicate Mr. Thomas and his insistence on "getting it right" -- even if that does mean questioning precedent.<br /><br />The perfect example is Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Supreme Court overruled the racist "separate but equal" rule of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which permitted legally enforced segregation and had been settled precedent for nearly 60 years.<br /><br />It is the Plessy dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan to which Mr. Thomas points for an example of a Justice putting his personal predilections aside to keep faith with the Constitution. Harlan was a Kentucky aristocrat and former slaveowner, although he was also a Unionist who fought for the North during the Civil War. A man of his time, he believed in white superiority, if not supremacy, and wrote in Plessy that the "white race" would continue to be dominant in the United States "in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power . . . for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty."<br /><br />"But," Harlan continued, "in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens."<br /><br />That, for Mr. Thomas, is the "great 'But,'" where Harlan's intellectual honesty trumped his personal prejudice, causing Mr. Thomas to describe Harlan as his favorite justice and even a role model. For both of them, justice is truly blind to everything but the law.<br /><br />More than anything else, this explains Mr. Thomas's own understanding of his job -- a determination to put "a firewall between my [PERSONAL\]view and the way that I interpret the Constitution," and to vindicate his oath "that I will administer justice without respect to person, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."<br /><br />This insistence by the Justice on judging based upon the law, and not on who the parties are, presents a stark contrast with today's liberal orthodoxy. The liberal approach -- which confuses law-driven judging with compassion-driven politics, enthused with a heavy distrust of the American political system's fairness -- was recently articulated by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who emphasized the need for judges with "heart" and "empathy" for the less fortunate, judges willing to favor the disempowered.<br /><br />Born in rural Georgia in 1948, Mr. Thomas and his brother were mostly raised in Savannah by their maternal grandparents. His grandfather, Myers Anderson, believed in work, and that rights come with responsibilities. According to his book, Mr. Anderson told the seven-year-old Clarence that "the damn vacation is over" the morning he moved in.<br /><br />Says Mr. Thomas: "Being willing to accept responsibility, that sort of dark side of freedom, first -- before you accept all the benefits. Being ready to be responsible for yourself -- you want to be independent. That was my grandfather." Anderson also taught his grandson to arrive at his conclusions honestly and not "to be bullied away from opinions that I think are legitimate. You know, not being unreasonable, but not being bullied away."<br /><br />For a man who has been subjected to a great deal of vitriol, Mr. Thomas manifests remarkable serenity. He rejoices in life outside the Court, regaling us with stories about his travels throughout the U.S., his many encounters with ordinary Americans, and his love of sports -- especially the Cornhuskers, the Dallas Cowboys and Nascar.<br /><br />Mr. Thomas isn't much bothered by his critics. "I can't answer the cynics and the negative people. I can't answer them because they can always be cynical about something."<br /><br />Mr. Thomas speaks movingly about the Court as an institution, and about his colleagues, both past and present. He sees them all, despite their differences, as honorable, each possessing a distinctive voice, and trying to do right as they see it. Our job, he concludes, is "to do it right. It's no more than that. We can talk about methodology. It's merely a methodology. It's not a religion. It is in the approach to doing the job right. And at bottom what it comes to, is to choose to interpret this document as carefully and as accurately and as legitimately as I can, versus inflicting my personal opinion or imposing my personal opinion on the rest of the country."<br /><br />And why doesn't he ask questions at oral argument, a question oft-posed by critics insinuating that he is intellectually lazy or worse? Mr. Thomas chuckles wryly and observes that oral advocacy was much more important in the Court's early days. Today, cases are thoroughly briefed by the time they reach the Supreme Court, and there is just too little time to have a meaningful conversation with the lawyers. "This is my 17th term and I haven't found it necessary to ask a bunch of questions. I would be doing it to satisfy other people, not to do my job. Most of the answers are in the briefs. This isn't Perry Mason."<br /><br />Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-733498296692772942008-03-13T08:19:00.000-07:002008-03-13T08:21:36.595-07:00Justice Thomas Highway in GeorgiaIn <a href="http://www.11alive.com/news/politics_govt/article_politics.aspx?storyid=112700">Georgia news</a>: <blockquote>ATLANTA (AP) -- Here's how some legislation fared on "crossover" day at the Georgia state Capitol:<br /><br />* * *<br /><br /> The interchange of I-95 and I-16 would be named after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, under a measure that passed unanimously. Thomas is a native of Pin Point, near where the two highways meet.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-55593998167793009782008-01-05T14:54:00.000-08:002008-01-05T15:12:30.375-08:00Justice Thomas Interview with EWTNRaymond Arroyo of the Catholic channel EWTN interviewed Justice Clarence Thomas in mid-December on his program "The World Over." Audio of the program is available <a href"http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892288&T1=world">here</a>, and you can download the entire file by clicking <a href="http://download.rbn.com/ewtn/g2ewtn/download/odaudio/wo_12142007.rm">here</a>. It's the Dec. 14, 2007 interview. This was tricky to find, however, because EWTN's website incorrectly states that Arroyo had interviewed a Father John Berg. That label is incorrect. It's an hour-long program; Justice Thomas's interview starts at about 9:22 and lasts the rest of the hour.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.fssp.com/main/News071115.htm">This website</a> explains the mislabeling: <blockquote>Many who watched "The World Over" on Friday, December 14th, expected to see the interview with Fr. Berg but were instead treated to a rare interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The taped interview with Justice Thomas was quite extensive, and apparently a last-minute decision was made by EWTN to postpone the broadcast of the interview with Fr. Berg to a later time so that the whole interview with Clarence Thomas could be aired within one show.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-32639873938833030182007-12-19T07:27:00.001-08:002007-12-19T07:31:02.400-08:00Justice Clarence Thomas Speaks at Reagan LibraryFrom the <a href="http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/dec/19/thomas-inspired-by-us-soldiers/">Ventura County Star</a>: <blockquote><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcIOYEzgl8xtdnzCheun24OxE8kYOKVercY8fFu-EZDoq-RdsZjJU0bMfkTVllYEurVlxTqxiDSTcnXk5NS_MznXdIeb3kmx6pWomNwCUl0_bqD8pLxd-FykV19GLDBcXMP3PBumkfktqZ/s1600-h/Thomas+and+Reagan.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcIOYEzgl8xtdnzCheun24OxE8kYOKVercY8fFu-EZDoq-RdsZjJU0bMfkTVllYEurVlxTqxiDSTcnXk5NS_MznXdIeb3kmx6pWomNwCUl0_bqD8pLxd-FykV19GLDBcXMP3PBumkfktqZ/s320/Thomas+and+Reagan.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5145706672732984834" /></a><small>Dana Rene Bowler / Star staff<br /><br />Justice Clarence Thomas escorts former first lady Nancy Reagan after speaking to a sold-out crowd Tuesday night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley.</small><br /><br /><b>Thomas inspired by U.S. soldiers<br />Justice answers questions in Simi</b><br /><br />By Anna Bakalis (Contact)<br />Wednesday, December 19, 2007 <br /><br />There are times when Clarence Thomas wishes he could take his wife and go home to Georgia, leaving his seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.<br /><br />But then he meets soldiers who came back from the war in Iraq with missing limbs and eyes, laid up in hospital beds with blood seeping through their bandages. Thomas realizes he wouldn't change a thing.<br /><br />"I was ashamed of myself," Associate Justice Thomas, 68, said Tuesday at the Reagan Library. "If these kids can be in harm's way, defending our freedom and our country, it is not hard for me to stay in Washington."<br /><br />Thomas was answering a question about what he would do if he weren't a justice on the nation's highest court. He spoke to a sold-out audience of about 700 in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Tuesday evening.<br /><br />Thomas walked into the Presidential Learning Center arm in arm with Nancy Reagan, whom he acknowledged in opening remarks.<br /><br />"You honor us in so many ways I can't express," Thomas said to Reagan.<br /><br />His wife, Virginia Lamp Thomas, also was in attendance.<br /><br />Though billed as a lecture, the event was more of a question-and-answer session, where the audience was asked to submit questions on cards that were later read by Duke Blackwood, the library's director.<br /><br />Blackwood asked about the outcome of the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recounts and allowed Florida to certify its vote.<br /><br />"I think that decision was right," Thomas said to audience applause. "It's the correct legal analysis.<br /><br />"Although I would have written a longer opinion," he quipped.<br /><br />Thomas talked about Ronald Reagan and how the nation's 40th president bore similarities to his grandfather, who raised Thomas in Savannah, Ga., and offered him the guidance he is ruled by today, Thomas said.<br /><br />"It's not about us," Thomas said. "It's about the principles we stand for — liberty, country, honor and integrity."<br /><br />Thomas supports a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limits on the power of federal government in favor of states' rights, he said.<br /><br />"It's not up to me to make up words in the Constitution that aren't there," he said.<br /><br />In 1980, he changed his voter registration from Democrat to Republican so he could vote for Reagan.<br /><br />"I didn't consider myself a Republican. But what he said and the way he said it reflected the way I was raised in Georgia."<br /><br />* * * </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-60832297235397102392007-12-19T07:23:00.000-08:002007-12-19T07:25:20.184-08:00Heritage Foundation VideosThe Heritage Foundation has a special <a href="http://www.myheritage.org/Features/Specials/Thomas/">webpage</a> with videos of Justice Clarence Thomas's recent speeches in New York, Atlanta, Omaha, Chicago, Dallas, and D.C.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1236151276191151702.post-38357175561342961982007-12-19T07:20:00.000-08:002007-12-19T07:23:23.529-08:00Justice Thomas Speaks in CaliforniaFrom the <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/news/thomas-book-people-1944513-whose-life">Orange County Register</a>: <blockquote>ORANGE – Clarence Thomas told an overflow crowd at Chapman University Monday evening that he never wanted to become a Supreme Court justice, or even a judge.<br /><br />"There's not much that entices about the job," Thomas said, answering questions from the public that provided a rare glimpse of the man behind the office. "There's no money in it, no privacy, no big houses, and from an ego standpoint, it does nothing for me."<br /><br />Thomas, 59, said the position is satisfying because he feels he's serving the public, and he's honored by it, "but I wouldn't say I like it."<br /><br />"I like sports," Thomas said. "I like to drive a motor home."<br /><br />Speaking to more than 1,000 people on the last leg of his tour to promote his book "My Grandfather's Son: a Memoir," published by HarperCollins in October, Thomas said he wrote the book as a tribute to his grandparents, who raised him.<br /><br />His book describes his life as a child in segregated Georgia whose mother worked as a maid and whose father had abandoned the family.<br /><br />He went to live with his grandparents and later considered becoming a Catholic priest, but ultimately graduated from Yale Law School and after bitterly contested Senate confirmation hearings earned a place on the nation's high court.<br /><br />The book includes Thomas' first personal account of the impact on his life of the Senate hearings, in which his former aide Anita Hill testified that he had sexually harassed her.<br /><br />The justice said he wanted to emphasize a message of hope in his book, to show how people can rise above their circumstances through work and determination. He added that he never considered himself "particularly talented," nor his life unusual.<br /><br />Immigrants have been attracted to the book, he said, because they relate to the theme of overcoming adversity.<br /><br />After a short, self-deprecating speech, Thomas spent half an hour responding to written questions from the audience, and later signed copies of his book.<br /><br />Asked how his Roman Catholic faith impacted his job, Thomas said he did not let his religion influence his decisions on the court. He also said he was determined "not to be cajoled or enticed into doing wrong things" by flattery.<br /><br />Some of his cases involve hard decisions that "pull at you as human beings," Thomas said. "Only people who don't feel pulled are people with no authority and those whose minds are already made up."<br /><br />Thomas, whose visit was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., drew standing ovations from the impressed crowd. When he first came up to the podium, to his apparent astonishment, a woman rose from the crowd and burst into an impassioned chorus of "You're Marvelous."<br /><br />Thomas said sometimes he will just sit and read the Constitution to admire it as a document.<br /><br />"Many people who can read the warranty of an iPhone have never read the Constitution of the United States," Thomas said, drawing laughter from the crowd.</blockquote>Attorney Tim Sandefur was there, and offers <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/news/thomas-book-people-1944513-whose-life">these observations</a>: <blockquote> Yesterday’s event with Justice Clarence Thomas went really well; it was full of the electricity of admiration and joy that Justice Thomas seems to inspire in people, and I was very privileged to attend the VIP reception beforehand and get a chance to talk briefly with the Justice and meet up with some old friends.<br /><br />The talk itself was attended by an overflow crowd—the Heritage Foundation even had to set up two overflow rooms for people to watch the talk on closed circuit television (and the line for the book signing afterwards was an hour long). I was lucky enough to get into the second row center, where I could see very well.<br /><br />The show began with a brief and powerful introduction by Professor Don Booth that really set the tone for the evening. “I’ve been teaching here for 45 years,” he began. “And before that I was a student. And let me tell you. Forty eight years, two months, and one day ago [I don’t remember this exactly, but he did] I was sitting right over there—” here he pointed to the right side of the audience. “And up here on stage was Martin Luther King.”*<br /><br />The audience instantly fell silent.<br /><br />“And even then, he was urging us to judge people by the content of their character. Well, Dr. King, we’ve done that. And that’s why we’re here tonight.” The audience burst into loud applause.<br /><br />Several other introductions were made, including Gene Meyer of the Federalist Society, Ed Meese, and John Eastman, who all sat alongside Thomas on the stage, and then the Justice came up to speak. Before he could get a word out, a woman in the audience called out to him. “Your honor! Your honor!”<br /><br />Thomas stopped. “Yes?” he asked, simply.<br /><br />The woman then began to sing, much to the shock and distaste of the audience at first, which would not have been surprised had there been hecklers to disrupt the event. But her singing wasn’t half bad. In fact, after a while, we noticed it was pretty good, and she was singing “You are too marvelous for words.” The audience just looked at one another, while Thomas, silent, stared at the woman, with a slowly growing smile. When she was done, we all couldn’t help ourselves; we burst into applause again.<br /><br />“Well,” said Thomas, “I’m glad I have the pigmentation I do, because otherwise you would all see me blushing!”<br /><br />Eastman, meanwhile, was blushing so hard he was hardly distinguishable from the scarlet curtain behind him.<br /><br />Thomas then started into his brief talk, covering his life and his optimism and explaining why he wrote the book. Thomas has never been an electrifying speaker when reading from a prepared script, but he seems to know this, so he kept his prepared remarks quite brief, and moved on to the questions from the audience. Of these, a few stood out. When asked about how his religious faith affects his performance as a judge, he explained that of course it provides him with strength to worry about his work instead of public acclaim, but he then wound up with, “You know, a lot of the same people who worry that my religious views will dictate my judging are the same people who want me to use the color of my skin to dictate my judging.” That got a loud round of applause (as did virtually everything he said).<br /><br />One person asked who his favorite authors are and his favorite books. Richard Wright, he said, of course, and Ralph Ellison—not a surprise to longtime admirers of Thomas—but he also likes Louis L’Amour novels. “And I had an Ayn Rand phase, and I still like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, sorry John...” (turning to Eastman). At this point, I felt the need to represent, so I cheered loudly, bringing another blush to Eastman’s face. (John Eastman is the easiest blushing man who ever lived.) “And I got about 90 percent of the way through Human Action before I gave up,” Thomas continued. “But Mises has a really good short book called Socialism, which is great.”<br /><br />Asked if he enjoys judging, he answered, “I enjoy sports. I enjoy driving my motor home. Judging is what I do. I get a certain satisfaction from a job well done, but I don’t get up in the morning, ‘Oh boy, I hope we get a death case today!’”<br /><br />One person asked why he doesn’t ask questions from the bench. A common question, Thomas answered as usual that he doesn’t think questions are really relevant. “This isn’t Perry Mason, you know. All the issues are in the briefs. When I started on the Court, it was a very quiet Court. And Harry Blackmun was very quiet. And when the Court started to ask more questions in his later years, Harry put his arms around me and said, ‘It’s just you and me now, Clarence.’ So nowadays I put my arms around myself and say, ‘It’s just me, Clarence.’”<br /><br />He was asked what advice he would give high school students. He answered by remembering a sign on the desk of a friend that said “When you don’t know your way, it’s best to ask someone who’s coming back what it was like.” That’s good advice, because your elders are people who know what that road is like. “We’ve all been 17. None of you have been 59. And the second thing I would say is, it’s not all about you!”<br /><br />I won’t go on too much in this vein, since I believe the Heritage Foundation will be posting video of the event on their website soon. Suffice to say it was a great time, and thanks to John Eastman particularly for helping to organize it and for getting me into the VIP Reception. It was a real blast.<br /><br />*-All these quotes, of course, are from memory, so they aren't exact.<br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0