I remember Clarence Thomas answering a very common question people had about him.
He was speaking before a group of students; it was Q&A time. (I can't recall if it was high school or college. This was probably 20+ years ago.)
"Why don't you speak more during sessions, Justice Thomas?"
The question we ALL *wanted* to ask, even those of us who regularly defended him against critics who insisted his silence was proof he had no business on the Court in the first place: "He's unqualified!" "He's Scalia's lapdog!" (You know the routine.)
This was back when Bill Maher was hated by today's anti-woke 'conservatives'. (Yes, Maher used to crap on Clarence Thomas, too. Alan Dershowitz was even worse. Times do change.)
These were ridiculous assertions in my view, and still are. They used to really piss me off.
In any case, Thomas proffered what I thought was a fair answer:
"Look. It's not like we haven't read these cases already. We know them quite well. Moreover, I have astute colleagues who often ask the questions I have in mind. That being the case, I see no point in speaking just to hear my own voice. That would be a waste of the Court's time." (paraphrased)
That answer suggested to me that Clarence Thomas genuinely cared about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, even if it meant being subjected to unwarranted opprobrium on a regular basis.
But that was then and this is now, and it's time to get real. Between his decades-long Harlan Crow excursions and apparent conflicts of interest vis-à-vis his wife, it is plain and obvious that Thomas doesn't value that ideal very much if at all.
Had Glenn made this proclamation a year ago, I would have been among the first to endorse. But new information has a way of changing things.
This. This is the real problem. Plenty of people knee-jerk dislike Thomas because they don’t like the idea of a black conservative. (And even among conservatives Thomas is CONSERVATIVE.) But dig a bit deeper and not only these extremely serious ethical concerns--which I believe that Glenn uncharacteristically just pushes to the side--but also an abyss between Thomas’ public statements about how he would judge, how the law should be applied to people, etc. and how he’s actual behaved and decided cases over the past 30 years. Liberals don’t need to smear him; he’s done that to himself.
I remember Clarence Thomas answering a very common question people had about him.
He was speaking before a group of students; it was Q&A time. (I can't recall if it was high school or college. This was probably 20+ years ago.)
"Why don't you speak more during sessions, Justice Thomas?"
The question we ALL *wanted* to ask, even those of us who regularly defended him against critics who insisted his silence was proof he had no business on the Court in the first place: "He's unqualified!" "He's Scalia's lapdog!" (You know the routine.)
This was back when Bill Maher was hated by today's anti-woke 'conservatives'. (Yes, Maher used to crap on Clarence Thomas, too. Alan Dershowitz was even worse. Times do change.)
These were ridiculous assertions in my view, and still are. They used to really piss me off.
In any case, Thomas proffered what I thought was a fair answer:
"Look. It's not like we haven't read these cases already. We know them quite well. Moreover, I have astute colleagues who often ask the questions I have in mind. That being the case, I see no point in speaking just to hear my own voice. That would be a waste of the Court's time." (paraphrased)
That answer suggested to me that Clarence Thomas genuinely cared about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, even if it meant being subjected to unwarranted opprobrium on a regular basis.
But that was then and this is now, and it's time to get real. Between his decades-long Harlan Crow excursions and apparent conflicts of interest vis-à-vis his wife, it is plain and obvious that Thomas doesn't value that ideal very much if at all.
Had Glenn made this proclamation a year ago, I would have been among the first to endorse. But new information has a way of changing things.
This. This is the real problem. Plenty of people knee-jerk dislike Thomas because they don’t like the idea of a black conservative. (And even among conservatives Thomas is CONSERVATIVE.) But dig a bit deeper and not only these extremely serious ethical concerns--which I believe that Glenn uncharacteristically just pushes to the side--but also an abyss between Thomas’ public statements about how he would judge, how the law should be applied to people, etc. and how he’s actual behaved and decided cases over the past 30 years. Liberals don’t need to smear him; he’s done that to himself.
Clarence Thomas has disturbing unresolved issues.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/glen-ford-clarence-thomas-anti-black-2007