Clarence Thomas

[eirias]

What's the deal with Clarence Thomas? Chatterers have been chattering about how he might be the next Supreme Court Justice, and how terrible a thing that would be for the left. Not knowing much about him, I did some shallow research today to find out why he's so reviled, and I have to say I came up kind of blank. I think I disagree with him quite a bit, but he seems principled and fair - for instance, I think his stance on affirmative action ignores certain things about human nature, but it's a stance I can sympathize with all the same, because necessary or not it's still pretty inherently sad. Further, I compared his dissenting opinion on Lawrence vs. Texas (a recent SCOTUS case in which I was personally invested) to Scalia's, and I have to say, there's no contest - Scalia's opinion was dripping with pages upon pages of contempt for gays, but Thomas' response was short and merely said that he thought the Texas law in question was lame, but that it was not the place of the Supreme Court to overturn it. Again - not an opinion I agree with, but nothing I can see to revile. Is there dirt I'm missing, or is this it?

Comments

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

"dirt" is right. look up the controversy surrounding his 1991 appointment.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Oh, I read a bit about that. It sounded like a run-of-the-mill sex scandal to me, no different from what happened to Clinton (not the Lewinsky stuff - the stuff that predated it - weren't there multiple women who claimed the president had harrassed them?)
I mean, I'm not a fan of ill treatment of women, obviously, but I'm always suspicious when this stuff comes up in the political arena, given that I never know whether it actually happened - it seems to have less to do with feminism and protecting women than it does with puritanism and political expediency.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

*shrug* it is, however, the dirt. as a justice he's been totally boring, he echoes all the other conservatives but in short form and without much to say.

i am inclined to believe hill, since she was herself a conservative, and unlikely to have much issue with thomas's likely calls as a judge.

[exilejedi.livejournal.com]

Scalia is the really scary one. *shudder*

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

He's kind of Scalia's bitch (in that, whither Scalia goes, he frequently follows).

But I think a lot of the fury springs from the fact that he's a black man who -- *gasp!* -- has the temerity to not be liberal. I think there are a lot of people who think that's illegal, or at least deeply paradoxical. And you motivate a lot more revulsion by stepping outside of a box that people think you should be in, than by not being in that box in the first place.

[cognative.livejournal.com]

As I recall a lot of the hubub around him was along those lines. At least among some black folks down south. Basicly he didn't pass the "are you black enough" test that some people get put through.

[cos]

Thomas is the least qualified judge to be appointed to the court in at least my lifetime. He had no significant history, and was picked specifically for his consistent ideological views. In oral argument before the court, he's usually silent - on most important cases, he doesn't even ask a single question. When it comes time to issue a decision, he usually just signs on to someone else's - he's got the lowest percentage of written opinions of any supreme court judge in a long time. Aside from his rather strident ideology, a lot of people (me included) just don't think he's supreme court caliber.

As for his judicial philosophy, it's a very extreme form of "strict constructionism". For example, the right to privacy isn't explicitly written into the constitution, so he doesn't feel bound by it. Everyone who wants the court to protect a right to privacy (and everything that flows from that, which includes not just abortion but also the right to buy condoms) is legitimately scared of Thomas.

Thomas also says that he doesn't recognize the court's tradition of not overturning precedent unless there is a very strong reason to. I forget the Latin term for that, but it's a long accepted doctrine that keeps our legal system relatively stable. In Thomas' opinion, precedent doesn't matter especially more than any other reasoning, and it's okay to have laws change on a regular basis.

That's just a sampling. Thomas is really scary.

[thaisa.livejournal.com]

Stare decisis (Lat. "to stand by that which is decided.") is the term you're looking for. Even Scalia very much does seem to hold to that. I'll note, however, that the biggest complaints that one should make about not holding to stare decisis are directed toward the liberal court in the sixties and seventies. Not that I'm complaining, mind you :)

I have a big problem with Thomas because I feel he's a hypocrite. He got his education and positions based on affirmative action policies, I believe. There's probably some rich white man who didn't get into Yale Law School because of Thomas. Oh, and I dislike his polictics, but no big surprise there.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

*shrug* That kind of hypocrisy doesn't actually bother me much. "I got where I am today through unfair policies and therefore I will support them" can be used to defend the old boys' network as easily as it can be used to defend affirmative action. "I have benefitted from an unfair system and that makes me feel dirty and insulted, so I will strive to end it" actually seems like a very honorable position to me. Again, I think he is probably taking a rosier view than is warranted of humanity's willingness to place trust in that with which it is unfamiliar. But I wouldn't look down on him for that; I'd merely disagree.

(From everything I've read about him, Thomas was bright and motivated enough to succeed in school on his own merits anyway - at least, the folk wisdom is that he spent his entire childhood in the library. This says nothing about his qualifications for SCOTUS, of course.)

[ksledge.livejournal.com]

agreed -- I am not bothered by that kind of hypocrisy at all...in fact I think I'm one of those people. Because my parents are well off, I went to all of these great schools and had awesome unpaid summer internship opportunities while other kids had to save up for college by waiting tables or scanning groceries. Moreover, because I went to my froo-froo high school I had an unfair advantage getting into college. Because of where I went to college, I'll have an unfair advantage getting into grad school. (They don't take prestige of institution that much into account, but I did get all of these ridiculous research/education opportunities at my college that I wouldn't have gotten a lot of other places.) Of course this is just what my parents wanted for me, but I want OTHER kids to have this opportunity, too! So, I will continue to be strongly in favor of affirmative action, scholarships, head start programs for minorities and poor people, need-based awards, etc.
I also hate it when people assume all blacks, women, (insert oppressed population here) should be democrats/liberals. Even though part of me is a little guilty of this sentiment, it is so obnoxious and condescending. In fact, it's stereotyping and borders on racism/sexism.

[cos]

Yeah, it is frustrating how conservative anger at "activist judges" in the 60s and 70s continues unabated today, even though the conservative justices of today are far more activist (in terms of how often they overturn laws and precedent) than the liberals of the 60s and 70s were. They just don't seem to see it.

The same pattern seems to hold for a lot of other things, all dating back to the origins of the right wing movements that started organizing in the 60s and 70s and have mostly taken over the country now. They were upset with the liberal media of that time, and continue to feel oppressed by the "liberal media" long after it has ceased to be. They opposed high income taxes, and they continue to rally around "tax cuts" even after upper bracket income taxes have gone ridiculously low and government is going broke. etc.

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Uhhhh... I'm going to point out for the record that I meant to say, "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court," up there.

Graham: "You mean there are going to be *two* Clarence Thomases???"

(And now the obviously brain dead one goes off to study multivariate distributions... excuse me while I kill myself.)