If you missed Wednesday’s City Journal and Manhattan Institute-hosted livestream, I’ve got you covered. Today I’m releasing the recording of that livestream as a special bonus episode. This event marked the publication of my City Journal essay “Clarence Thomas and Me,”
Just getting a chance to listen to this one... Randall being a professor of law at Harvard... just another reason why I think Harvard should no longer be considered an elite institution
Shortly after listening to this, I had the occasion to visit the Pin Point Heritage Museum. Clarence Thomas is from a small (like one street) waterfront neighborhood on the outskirts of Savannah, GA. It used to be a fishing community before the surrounding area was turned into expensive real estate and golf clubs, minus a few areas.
The museum is a defunct oyster factory. You certainly learn that Clarence Thomas came from here, but in the half hour documentary where various local residents are interviewed, their names are not shown until the end. So Justice Thomas is actually in it talking about the local culture, but I could tell whether it was him or his brother or something until the credits came on. The museum treats him as just one of the guys.
I didn’t get any real answer on what the locals thought of his politics, but the museum itself was deeply conservative, with everything being about religion and respecting your elders and hard work and literally conserving the local culture and history. The surrounding neighborhood is focused around the church at the end of the block. One of the houses had a Lion of Judah flag on it, but other than that I didn’t get a lot of strong political signals (i.e. no “BLM”, no “in this house we believe”, no “MAGA”, etc.).
The Supreme Court is more of a typical hangout for me than a coastal island in Georgia, but having been to both, it’s really hard for someone inside the beltway to fathom what’s going on in the Lowcountry. I certainly did not get the sense that Justice Thomas was anything other than true to his roots.
The claim at the end-that this era’s Supreme Court would be poorly regarded in history-seems bizarre to me. Clarence Thomas aside, the Court has a far better reputation among the American people than the other branches of federal government. And deservedly so, as far as I can tell.
[Time 36:00]: On criticism that Loury is inconsistent per Justice Thomas’ consideration of Blackness when ruling and then other rulings in which “Blackness is not a consideration.” Each human carries within oneself numerous selves; the religious self, the parent, the professor, the bicyclist, etc. A judge who only sees “self-A” instead of multiple selves, and then rules solely on consideration of self-A - or more accurately, on political perspective-X consideration of self-A would be narrowly super-consistent such that other factors and relative weight are ignored. I imagine that Loury would characterize Justice Thomas as seeing a Black self, while at the same time also seeing beyond.
[Time 8:00]; Randall is dissatisfied that Thomas voted to end “The Voting Act”. The story I remember from a liberal news source was that “It was due time to end the Act, because the problem had been resolved.” I also remember not being concerned, nor were my liberal friends.
I am the same age as McWhorter. If Loury and Thomas were born in 1948; then my father would have been old enough to be their father.
It must be exhausting having to think about how you're "supposed to" do, say and think everything. Randall Kennedy must feel as though he's 200 years old.
Kennedy is perplexing. In this debate and the past debate he relies very heavily on the usual moral civil rights rhetoric that is hard to argue with but doesn't really apply to the specifics of the debate or today's America. He is clinging to his vested and deeply held beliefs but sees that many aspects of his precious movements are absurd and indefensible.
If the left would admit that disparities are more attributable to behavior, competence, and performance rather than discrimination we could become so much more productive as a country.
Very much appreciated the opportunity to listen in on the livestream the other day -- it’s a privilege to be a fly on the wall for such an open discussion on sensitive topics between people who don’t agree but manage to engage in respectful dialogue. Would love more opportunities like this in the future!
The rhetorical tricks used by Randall were frustrating in comparison to Robert George's reasoned legal analysis, regardless of which opinion was "correct."
I agree that Clarence Thomas has proved he's a superior jurist in terms of intellect and judgement, and certainly deserves recognition for that. But could he not exhibit at least one instance of breaking ranks with the Federalist Society position on, say, an issue involving the environment, abortion, money in politics, voting rights? It would make his voice more credible among non-ideologues. Perhaps he has and I missed it...
The impacts of the Supreme Court's Shelby vs. Holder decision, as measured in terms of black-white differences in voter registration rates, have been minimal.
The decision was rendered in 2013. The Court's opinion noted that six states were covered by the law in 1965: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. Thirty-nine counties in North Carolina were covered as well. This is laid out on page 4 of the opinion, which you can access over at the Brennan Center for Justice:
U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 elections show that the differences between black and white voter registration rates in these states were below the national average and that several states not originally covered by the law have much larger differentials.
Here are 2022 national figures for voter registration rates for all citizens by race:
White non-Hispanic alone - 73.2%
Black alone - 64.1%
White - black difference - 9.1 percentage points
Here are the 2022 figures for the six states that were originally covered in 1965, plus North Carolina:
Alabama
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.2%
Black alone - 63.6%
White - black difference - 6.6 percentage points
Georgia
White non-Hispanic alone - 72.2%
Black alone - 68.3%
White - black difference - 3.9 percentage points
Louisiana
White non-Hispanic alone - 71.4%
Black alone - 63.1%
White - black difference - 8.3%
Mississippi
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.3%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.9 percentage points
North Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 63.5%
Black alone - 56.7%
White - black difference - 6.8 percentage points
South Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 67.9%
Black alone - 60.5%
White - black difference - 7.4 percentage points
Virginia
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.9%
Black alone - 72.7%
White - black difference - 3.2 percentage points
All seven states had smaller gaps between white voter registration rates and black voter registration rates than the nation as a whole.
Let's go a step further and look at the differences in several states that were not originally covered in 1965:
California
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.7%
Black alone - 64.6%
White - black difference - 10.5 percentage points
Colorado
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.3%
Black alone - 55.0%
White - black difference - 20.3 percentage points
Connecticut
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.0%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.6 percentage points
Delaware
White non-Hispanic alone - 80.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 14.1 percentage points
District of Columbia
White non-Hispanic alone - 88.9%
Black alone - 77.6%
White-black difference - 11.3 percentage points
Illinois
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.1%
Black alone - 61.4%
White - black difference - 13.7%
Minnesota
White non-Hispanic alone - 79.3%
Black alone - 67.0%
White - black difference - 12.3 percentage points
New Jersey
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 8.1%
New York
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.0%
Black alone - 61.7%
White - black difference - 8.3 percentage points
Use this link and download Table 4b if you want to do a deep dive:
What does it tell you when Mississippi has a higher percentage of its black citizens registered to vote than Illinois (72.4% vs. 61.4%) and a much smaller difference in registration rates between black and white citizens (1.9 percentage points vs. 13.7 percentage points)? Which state seems to be more deserving of federal pre-clearance scrutiny when changes to voting laws and procedures are made?
My point is not to cast aspersions on Illinois or the other states that have worse than average white-black voter registration differences. The data suggests that there is no longer any justification for applying extra scrutiny to Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. They should be treated the same as any other state. That was the point made in the Shelby vs. Holder decision.
There are corrective mechanisms in place when states do things that run afoul of the law. We saw an example of this with Alabama's new congressional maps:
Riveting conversation. Kennedy outnumbered three to one but seems to relish these kinds of interactions. Wish he had explained what was so egregious (in his view) about the Shelby decision to us non-lawyers but that would probably have taken the full hour.
I'm not sure that Kennedy's clerkship is all that relevant. He sees very good arguments on both sides of the SFA v. Harvard case. I would like to have heard more from him about why he sees Shelby differently.
There's a backstory that explains why people who justifiably think of Justice Marshall as a civil rights hero have enmity towards Justice Thomas. I wrote a post about this elsewhere on this site:
I won't rehash that post, but suffice it to say that the contrast between Justice Marshall and Justice Thomas is sharp. Justice Marshall is a hero for Professor Kennedy. Glenn pointed out his disdain for Justice Thomas in his City Journal essay. It's easy to connect the dots and understand why.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred for older blacks, including Professor Kennedy. They'll never concede that it accomplished its mission, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in the majority opinion. It's always 1955, as another commenter said, for these folks. The six states that were originally subjected to the law can never be trusted to run their election processes without pre-clearance from the federal government.
Professor Kennedy's position before the Harvard case was decided was also emotional, as evidenced by this NY Times essay of his that was published in early June of last year:
The title, "The Truth Is, Many Americans Just Don't Want Black People to Get Ahead" doesn't square with the position that there are good arguments on both sides. Much of the essay drew upon historical events that occurred 150 years ago. Professor Kennedy didn't acknowledge the quality of opposing views in this NPR article after the decision was handed down either:
Professor Kennedy's positions are consistent with those of older blacks, but aren't consistent with those of younger blacks. A new Gallup survey shows that 62% of blacks between the ages of 18 and 39 view the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision positively, while 56% of blacks 40 and older view it negatively:
No disrespect to Professor Kennedy, but the world is slowly, but surely passing him by. Nobody will care about Shelby vs. Holder a hundred years from now.
With respect, I'm interested in understanding Kennedy's position from his own perspective, not a psychosocial interpretation of it. None of the people in this conversation showed the slightest bit of condescension towards Kennedy, even though they disagreed firmly on many points. Your posts, in contrast, are dripping with condescension. Not useful in my opinion.
Here's an excerpt from the book that the interviewer discussed with Professor Kennedy:
"...if Thomas is not a sellout., then the term has no utility. He is the paradigmatic figure who many African Americans rightly despise - the black who, from a position of privilege obtained by the sponsorship of powerful whites, consistently subverts struggles for African American collective elevation, all the while deploying his blackness as a shield against criticism."
Professor Kennedy's views on Shelby v. Holder can be found in several publications, including London Review of Books, The Nation, and Harper's Magazine:
Read them for yourself and draw your own conclusions about Professor Kennedy's assertion that Shelby vs. Holder is one of the Supreme Court's worst decisions.
Thanks, those links are useful, and not just for me. I've read the book but it's been a while and I probably need to take another look. Haven't read the articles yet but will try to find time.
Kennedy's Race, Crime and the Law is an absolute classic, I see my own book with Dan O'Flaherty as building on that foundation. Cited it maybe a dozen times there. I can see why Glenn has such respect for him and places such value on the friendship.
I thought that the discussion was very interesting. One thing that came to my mind during the discussion about whether Clarence Thomas is a part of the Black community is the idea of an intentional community. I was watch a set of lectures on Wondrium on the History of Christianity and the professor kept pointing out that early Christians are an intentional community, something that I had never thought about. They could walk away at any time. With the exception of those who can "pass" because they are of mixed race, African-Americans have no choice but to be part of the Black community. It is not an intentional community. Now being a Democrat is intentional, being a Republican is intentional, but not being Black. (I recognize that there are exceptions to this.)
The comments of Professor Kennedy reminded me of an article I saw several years ago about Justice Scalia's jurisprudence. (It was before he died.) The author seemed to be criticizing Justice Scalia based on his personal policy preferences or views rather than upon any legal principles. In my opinion one thing that this approach misses is that a policy based upon a judicial decision is fundamentally different from one based on legislation, even if on the surface they appear to be the same. This follows from the difficulty of making changes if problems with the policy are discovered down the road. And with the Federal Courts, it prevents state legislatures from making policy adjustments, sometimes even if they are only minor.
Powerful conversation. I love what Professor George said about standing up for what you believe in, but be willing to take the slings and arrows. That's what makes Justice Thomas so compelling. Along with Glenn, John, Sowell, Steele, and the list goes on.
Many of us see women with failed pregnancies being forced to deliver, banning books, putting forth fake electors, supporting a conman for President, and suggesting dictatorship as modern Conservative values.
Better than infanticide, porning-up elementary and middle schools, rioting, rampant crime, ethnic spoils systems, purposeful dismantling of industrial civilization, and criminalizing the political opposition, which appear to be the defining traits of the contemporary left.
(There is a better-faith and more nuanced version of this critique I could offer, but in light of your comment, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander)
(1) "Infanticide"/Abortion: Many immoral things are popular. That doesn't make them good.
(2) "Porning Up Schools": I commend to your attention the following titles - "Nick and Charlie” by Alice Oseman, "Genderqueer" by Maia Kobabe, and "Flamer" by Nick Curato, all of which have been widely reported to be found in school libraries, as well as the coverage of the California sex education curriculum module, which runs K-12. There is quite a lot of reporting on these issues, as they've sparked a lot of protest.
(3) "Ethnic Spoils" - DEI ethnic mandates and quotas, such as California Corporations Code sections 301.3, 301.4, 2115.5 and 2115.6, which is reprised in corporate and state hiring programs, academic scholarship offerings, and many other places throughout the country.
(4) "Crime" - Murders remain 50% higher than 2014 levels. (https://shorturl.at/auCHU). The proportions of retailers reporting theft of more than 2% of their total sales also increased by 50% from 2014. (https://shorturl.at/eCFJ9 [Fig. 2 at pg. 5]). DC has seen carjacking incidents nearly double in a single year. (https://shorturl.at/dfmpK)
(5) "Rioting" - Not January 6 (though when Democrats storm legislative buildings for the purpose of impeding official business they stay for days [https://shorturl.at/koxSY]) - the $1bn. of damages caused by BLM riots, the leftist riots outside the White House in 2020 (who got paid for their trouble, by the way - https://shorturl.at/bvMV0), and again just now (https://shorturl.at/sMU45), as well as the constant leftist blockages of major trafficways.
(6) "Criminalizing Opposition" - Not only did Democrat officials get elected specifically on the platform of "getting Trump," there's the Whitmer "fednapping" entrapment scheme, and the general sentencing disparity that has the 1/6 prosecutions officially going as the longest RICO prosecution in US history (while the rest of DC crime goes out of control and murderers get lesser sentences than grandmas who filed into the capitol and gawped around for a bit and left peaceably). There might not be protests on Hunter's behalf, but there didn't have to be - the Democratic party got four dozen intelligence officials to knowingly lie and claim that real evidence of his wrongdoing "had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" and get it censored from the internet during the height of a presidential campaign.
I could go on further, but frankly I have better things to do. I hope this leads you to reflect and think that your opponents might have spent at least as much time considering their beliefs as you have yours.
Despite accepting and not documenting gifts received from Republican donors, Thomas is still an honorable man. Hilarious.
Edit to add:
Along with reading the upcoming books by Coleman Hughes and Glenn Loury, I can’t wait to get my hands on “The Grift: The Downward Spiral of Black Republicans from the Party of Lincoln to the Cult of Trump” by Clay Cane.
Did the absurd mess that is Thomas's majority opinion in Bruen get discussed? (Bruen struck down a law, and one need only to look at the concurrence by Kavanaugh to see what a decent majority option striking the law down could have looked like).
That particular case was not discussed. Dr. Loury suggested that Thomas was ”one of us” (a black man), therefore Thomas should not be exiled despite his rulings on things like the Shelby case.
Thomas has views that fall outside what is considered to be the norm for many Black people. Liz Cheney was removed from power in the Republican Party for challenging Trump. Republicans label those with outlier views RINOs.
Thomas gets pushback. Cheney gets pushback. Water is wet.
We built a gigantic industry on that basis, of which Kennedy is a part. He's right about one thing, however. Once you invoke or perpetuate the identity politics of WE/US of whatever race, there's fealty or betrayal in relation to the group. You will then misunderstand what group you actually belong to because your identity is nostalgic and not based on the people with whom you share things in common now, rather than the ones you had back on the South side.
Thomas' problem is not that, that's for sure. His problem is being a guy who benefited from reverse discrimination, sexually harassed a junior colleague, then got another racialist nod from GHW Bush to be further elevated, all while appearing to be a compassionless, corrupt dirtbag who just has one opinion I happen to agree with.
Just getting a chance to listen to this one... Randall being a professor of law at Harvard... just another reason why I think Harvard should no longer be considered an elite institution
Shortly after listening to this, I had the occasion to visit the Pin Point Heritage Museum. Clarence Thomas is from a small (like one street) waterfront neighborhood on the outskirts of Savannah, GA. It used to be a fishing community before the surrounding area was turned into expensive real estate and golf clubs, minus a few areas.
The museum is a defunct oyster factory. You certainly learn that Clarence Thomas came from here, but in the half hour documentary where various local residents are interviewed, their names are not shown until the end. So Justice Thomas is actually in it talking about the local culture, but I could tell whether it was him or his brother or something until the credits came on. The museum treats him as just one of the guys.
I didn’t get any real answer on what the locals thought of his politics, but the museum itself was deeply conservative, with everything being about religion and respecting your elders and hard work and literally conserving the local culture and history. The surrounding neighborhood is focused around the church at the end of the block. One of the houses had a Lion of Judah flag on it, but other than that I didn’t get a lot of strong political signals (i.e. no “BLM”, no “in this house we believe”, no “MAGA”, etc.).
The Supreme Court is more of a typical hangout for me than a coastal island in Georgia, but having been to both, it’s really hard for someone inside the beltway to fathom what’s going on in the Lowcountry. I certainly did not get the sense that Justice Thomas was anything other than true to his roots.
The claim at the end-that this era’s Supreme Court would be poorly regarded in history-seems bizarre to me. Clarence Thomas aside, the Court has a far better reputation among the American people than the other branches of federal government. And deservedly so, as far as I can tell.
[Time 36:00]: On criticism that Loury is inconsistent per Justice Thomas’ consideration of Blackness when ruling and then other rulings in which “Blackness is not a consideration.” Each human carries within oneself numerous selves; the religious self, the parent, the professor, the bicyclist, etc. A judge who only sees “self-A” instead of multiple selves, and then rules solely on consideration of self-A - or more accurately, on political perspective-X consideration of self-A would be narrowly super-consistent such that other factors and relative weight are ignored. I imagine that Loury would characterize Justice Thomas as seeing a Black self, while at the same time also seeing beyond.
[Time 8:00]; Randall is dissatisfied that Thomas voted to end “The Voting Act”. The story I remember from a liberal news source was that “It was due time to end the Act, because the problem had been resolved.” I also remember not being concerned, nor were my liberal friends.
I am the same age as McWhorter. If Loury and Thomas were born in 1948; then my father would have been old enough to be their father.
It must be exhausting having to think about how you're "supposed to" do, say and think everything. Randall Kennedy must feel as though he's 200 years old.
Kennedy is perplexing. In this debate and the past debate he relies very heavily on the usual moral civil rights rhetoric that is hard to argue with but doesn't really apply to the specifics of the debate or today's America. He is clinging to his vested and deeply held beliefs but sees that many aspects of his precious movements are absurd and indefensible.
If the left would admit that disparities are more attributable to behavior, competence, and performance rather than discrimination we could become so much more productive as a country.
Very much appreciated the opportunity to listen in on the livestream the other day -- it’s a privilege to be a fly on the wall for such an open discussion on sensitive topics between people who don’t agree but manage to engage in respectful dialogue. Would love more opportunities like this in the future!
The rhetorical tricks used by Randall were frustrating in comparison to Robert George's reasoned legal analysis, regardless of which opinion was "correct."
I agree that Clarence Thomas has proved he's a superior jurist in terms of intellect and judgement, and certainly deserves recognition for that. But could he not exhibit at least one instance of breaking ranks with the Federalist Society position on, say, an issue involving the environment, abortion, money in politics, voting rights? It would make his voice more credible among non-ideologues. Perhaps he has and I missed it...
The impacts of the Supreme Court's Shelby vs. Holder decision, as measured in terms of black-white differences in voter registration rates, have been minimal.
The decision was rendered in 2013. The Court's opinion noted that six states were covered by the law in 1965: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. Thirty-nine counties in North Carolina were covered as well. This is laid out on page 4 of the opinion, which you can access over at the Brennan Center for Justice:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/shelby-county-v-holder-case-documents
U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 elections show that the differences between black and white voter registration rates in these states were below the national average and that several states not originally covered by the law have much larger differentials.
Here are 2022 national figures for voter registration rates for all citizens by race:
White non-Hispanic alone - 73.2%
Black alone - 64.1%
White - black difference - 9.1 percentage points
Here are the 2022 figures for the six states that were originally covered in 1965, plus North Carolina:
Alabama
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.2%
Black alone - 63.6%
White - black difference - 6.6 percentage points
Georgia
White non-Hispanic alone - 72.2%
Black alone - 68.3%
White - black difference - 3.9 percentage points
Louisiana
White non-Hispanic alone - 71.4%
Black alone - 63.1%
White - black difference - 8.3%
Mississippi
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.3%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.9 percentage points
North Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 63.5%
Black alone - 56.7%
White - black difference - 6.8 percentage points
South Carolina
White non-Hispanic alone - 67.9%
Black alone - 60.5%
White - black difference - 7.4 percentage points
Virginia
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.9%
Black alone - 72.7%
White - black difference - 3.2 percentage points
All seven states had smaller gaps between white voter registration rates and black voter registration rates than the nation as a whole.
Let's go a step further and look at the differences in several states that were not originally covered in 1965:
California
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.7%
Black alone - 64.6%
White - black difference - 10.5 percentage points
Colorado
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.3%
Black alone - 55.0%
White - black difference - 20.3 percentage points
Connecticut
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.0%
Black alone - 72.4%
White - black difference - 1.6 percentage points
Delaware
White non-Hispanic alone - 80.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 14.1 percentage points
District of Columbia
White non-Hispanic alone - 88.9%
Black alone - 77.6%
White-black difference - 11.3 percentage points
Illinois
White non-Hispanic alone - 75.1%
Black alone - 61.4%
White - black difference - 13.7%
Minnesota
White non-Hispanic alone - 79.3%
Black alone - 67.0%
White - black difference - 12.3 percentage points
New Jersey
White non-Hispanic alone - 74.4%
Black alone - 66.3%
White - black difference - 8.1%
New York
White non-Hispanic alone - 70.0%
Black alone - 61.7%
White - black difference - 8.3 percentage points
Use this link and download Table 4b if you want to do a deep dive:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-586.html
What does it tell you when Mississippi has a higher percentage of its black citizens registered to vote than Illinois (72.4% vs. 61.4%) and a much smaller difference in registration rates between black and white citizens (1.9 percentage points vs. 13.7 percentage points)? Which state seems to be more deserving of federal pre-clearance scrutiny when changes to voting laws and procedures are made?
My point is not to cast aspersions on Illinois or the other states that have worse than average white-black voter registration differences. The data suggests that there is no longer any justification for applying extra scrutiny to Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. They should be treated the same as any other state. That was the point made in the Shelby vs. Holder decision.
There are corrective mechanisms in place when states do things that run afoul of the law. We saw an example of this with Alabama's new congressional maps:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/court-throws-out-alabama-gop-congressional-map-for-violating-voting-rights-act-00113962
We've also seen how this works in New York:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/new-york-top-court-tosses-congressisonal-map-democratic-gerrymandering-rcna26138
To the extent that people are talking about Shelby v. Holder one hundred years from now, they'll be wondering what the fuss was all about.
Riveting conversation. Kennedy outnumbered three to one but seems to relish these kinds of interactions. Wish he had explained what was so egregious (in his view) about the Shelby decision to us non-lawyers but that would probably have taken the full hour.
Please see my post above. Professor Kennedy clerked for Justice Marshall, so his reaction makes sense on an emotional level.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/09/former-clerks-recall-mr-civil-rights-thurgood-marshall/
The numbers show that the impacts have been minimal
I'm not sure that Kennedy's clerkship is all that relevant. He sees very good arguments on both sides of the SFA v. Harvard case. I would like to have heard more from him about why he sees Shelby differently.
There's a backstory that explains why people who justifiably think of Justice Marshall as a civil rights hero have enmity towards Justice Thomas. I wrote a post about this elsewhere on this site:
https://glennloury.substack.com/p/livestream-event-glenn-loury-on-clarence/comments
I won't rehash that post, but suffice it to say that the contrast between Justice Marshall and Justice Thomas is sharp. Justice Marshall is a hero for Professor Kennedy. Glenn pointed out his disdain for Justice Thomas in his City Journal essay. It's easy to connect the dots and understand why.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred for older blacks, including Professor Kennedy. They'll never concede that it accomplished its mission, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in the majority opinion. It's always 1955, as another commenter said, for these folks. The six states that were originally subjected to the law can never be trusted to run their election processes without pre-clearance from the federal government.
Professor Kennedy's position before the Harvard case was decided was also emotional, as evidenced by this NY Times essay of his that was published in early June of last year:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/opinion/resistance-black-advancement-affirmative-action.html
The title, "The Truth Is, Many Americans Just Don't Want Black People to Get Ahead" doesn't square with the position that there are good arguments on both sides. Much of the essay drew upon historical events that occurred 150 years ago. Professor Kennedy didn't acknowledge the quality of opposing views in this NPR article after the decision was handed down either:
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision
Professor Kennedy's positions are consistent with those of older blacks, but aren't consistent with those of younger blacks. A new Gallup survey shows that 62% of blacks between the ages of 18 and 39 view the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision positively, while 56% of blacks 40 and older view it negatively:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/578645/age-plays-key-role-black-views-affirmative-action-case.aspx
No disrespect to Professor Kennedy, but the world is slowly, but surely passing him by. Nobody will care about Shelby vs. Holder a hundred years from now.
With respect, I'm interested in understanding Kennedy's position from his own perspective, not a psychosocial interpretation of it. None of the people in this conversation showed the slightest bit of condescension towards Kennedy, even though they disagreed firmly on many points. Your posts, in contrast, are dripping with condescension. Not useful in my opinion.
Here's a link to an interview Professor Kennedy did with GBH News a couple of years ago to discuss his book, "Say It Loud!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5TQAUaI2fw
Here's an excerpt from the book that the interviewer discussed with Professor Kennedy:
"...if Thomas is not a sellout., then the term has no utility. He is the paradigmatic figure who many African Americans rightly despise - the black who, from a position of privilege obtained by the sponsorship of powerful whites, consistently subverts struggles for African American collective elevation, all the while deploying his blackness as a shield against criticism."
Professor Kennedy's views on Shelby v. Holder can be found in several publications, including London Review of Books, The Nation, and Harper's Magazine:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n02/randall-kennedy/cynical-realism
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n15/randall-kennedy/racist-litter
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/justice-deferred-racial-equality-supreme-court/
https://harpers.org/archive/2015/08/old-poison-new-battles/
Read them for yourself and draw your own conclusions about Professor Kennedy's assertion that Shelby vs. Holder is one of the Supreme Court's worst decisions.
Thanks, those links are useful, and not just for me. I've read the book but it's been a while and I probably need to take another look. Haven't read the articles yet but will try to find time.
Kennedy's Race, Crime and the Law is an absolute classic, I see my own book with Dan O'Flaherty as building on that foundation. Cited it maybe a dozen times there. I can see why Glenn has such respect for him and places such value on the friendship.
Fair enough. We agree to disagree.
I thought that the discussion was very interesting. One thing that came to my mind during the discussion about whether Clarence Thomas is a part of the Black community is the idea of an intentional community. I was watch a set of lectures on Wondrium on the History of Christianity and the professor kept pointing out that early Christians are an intentional community, something that I had never thought about. They could walk away at any time. With the exception of those who can "pass" because they are of mixed race, African-Americans have no choice but to be part of the Black community. It is not an intentional community. Now being a Democrat is intentional, being a Republican is intentional, but not being Black. (I recognize that there are exceptions to this.)
The comments of Professor Kennedy reminded me of an article I saw several years ago about Justice Scalia's jurisprudence. (It was before he died.) The author seemed to be criticizing Justice Scalia based on his personal policy preferences or views rather than upon any legal principles. In my opinion one thing that this approach misses is that a policy based upon a judicial decision is fundamentally different from one based on legislation, even if on the surface they appear to be the same. This follows from the difficulty of making changes if problems with the policy are discovered down the road. And with the Federal Courts, it prevents state legislatures from making policy adjustments, sometimes even if they are only minor.
"With the exception of those who can "pass" because they are of mixed race, African-Americans have no choice but to be part of the Black community."
This is only true if dark-skinned individuals are excluded from others' communities, which hasn't been true except in tiny pockets for a while.
Powerful conversation. I love what Professor George said about standing up for what you believe in, but be willing to take the slings and arrows. That's what makes Justice Thomas so compelling. Along with Glenn, John, Sowell, Steele, and the list goes on.
What do modern Conservatives stand for?
Many of us see women with failed pregnancies being forced to deliver, banning books, putting forth fake electors, supporting a conman for President, and suggesting dictatorship as modern Conservative values.
Better than infanticide, porning-up elementary and middle schools, rioting, rampant crime, ethnic spoils systems, purposeful dismantling of industrial civilization, and criminalizing the political opposition, which appear to be the defining traits of the contemporary left.
(There is a better-faith and more nuanced version of this critique I could offer, but in light of your comment, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander)
The public supports abortion ( which I assume you are calling infanticide)
When abortion is put to a vote even in Red states, legal abortion wins
You clown yourself, what does “ porning up” schools even mean?
By rioting are you talking about January 6th?
Violent crime is dramatically decreased
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2023/12/29/homicides-see-historic-decline-in-2023-despite-perceptions-that-crime-is-on-the-rise/?sh=375879cd76e7
By ethnic spoils do you mean legacy admissions?
Republicans seem to be the ones ready to put political opponents in prison
Trump wanted to lock up Hillary Clinton
Trump says he will imprison current political opponents if re-elected
You nonsensical post proves that you have no nuanced critique
You want a system where only laws you support are to be obeyed
Republicans are arguing Trump’s crimes should go unpunished
There are no protests to keep Hunter Biden from facing trial
There are no public protests to keep Bob Menendez from facing trial
Trump supporters are threatening and swatting judges, election workers, court officials, etc.
I always laugh when Republicans/Conservatives present themselves as morality barometers
BTW, your leader Marjorie Taylor Greene is an adulteress who practices tantric sex
Lauren Bobert publicly groped her companion’s private parts
Trump is a convicted sex offender
You have no nuance
You clowned yourself
(1) "Infanticide"/Abortion: Many immoral things are popular. That doesn't make them good.
(2) "Porning Up Schools": I commend to your attention the following titles - "Nick and Charlie” by Alice Oseman, "Genderqueer" by Maia Kobabe, and "Flamer" by Nick Curato, all of which have been widely reported to be found in school libraries, as well as the coverage of the California sex education curriculum module, which runs K-12. There is quite a lot of reporting on these issues, as they've sparked a lot of protest.
(3) "Ethnic Spoils" - DEI ethnic mandates and quotas, such as California Corporations Code sections 301.3, 301.4, 2115.5 and 2115.6, which is reprised in corporate and state hiring programs, academic scholarship offerings, and many other places throughout the country.
(4) "Crime" - Murders remain 50% higher than 2014 levels. (https://shorturl.at/auCHU). The proportions of retailers reporting theft of more than 2% of their total sales also increased by 50% from 2014. (https://shorturl.at/eCFJ9 [Fig. 2 at pg. 5]). DC has seen carjacking incidents nearly double in a single year. (https://shorturl.at/dfmpK)
(5) "Rioting" - Not January 6 (though when Democrats storm legislative buildings for the purpose of impeding official business they stay for days [https://shorturl.at/koxSY]) - the $1bn. of damages caused by BLM riots, the leftist riots outside the White House in 2020 (who got paid for their trouble, by the way - https://shorturl.at/bvMV0), and again just now (https://shorturl.at/sMU45), as well as the constant leftist blockages of major trafficways.
(6) "Criminalizing Opposition" - Not only did Democrat officials get elected specifically on the platform of "getting Trump," there's the Whitmer "fednapping" entrapment scheme, and the general sentencing disparity that has the 1/6 prosecutions officially going as the longest RICO prosecution in US history (while the rest of DC crime goes out of control and murderers get lesser sentences than grandmas who filed into the capitol and gawped around for a bit and left peaceably). There might not be protests on Hunter's behalf, but there didn't have to be - the Democratic party got four dozen intelligence officials to knowingly lie and claim that real evidence of his wrongdoing "had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" and get it censored from the internet during the height of a presidential campaign.
I could go on further, but frankly I have better things to do. I hope this leads you to reflect and think that your opponents might have spent at least as much time considering their beliefs as you have yours.
If a child brings a book home that goes against heir standards take it back to the school
Librarians are happy that children are reading
Corporations are making records profits
Go DEI
Crime is going down
January 6th was an attack on democracy
Politicians run to defeat their political opponents.
Nothing you posted requires reflection
Despite accepting and not documenting gifts received from Republican donors, Thomas is still an honorable man. Hilarious.
Edit to add:
Along with reading the upcoming books by Coleman Hughes and Glenn Loury, I can’t wait to get my hands on “The Grift: The Downward Spiral of Black Republicans from the Party of Lincoln to the Cult of Trump” by Clay Cane.
For Randall Kennedy it seems that it is always 1955.
Kennedy points out the flaws in Thomas’ jurisprudence.
The rest of us look at what Conservatives put forth as policy and laugh. They can’t even agree on a budget amongst themselves..
DeSantis is dead in the water
Haley can’t give a straight answer.
I haven't gotten to this one yet to listen to.
Did the absurd mess that is Thomas's majority opinion in Bruen get discussed? (Bruen struck down a law, and one need only to look at the concurrence by Kavanaugh to see what a decent majority option striking the law down could have looked like).
That particular case was not discussed. Dr. Loury suggested that Thomas was ”one of us” (a black man), therefore Thomas should not be exiled despite his rulings on things like the Shelby case.
Thomas has views that fall outside what is considered to be the norm for many Black people. Liz Cheney was removed from power in the Republican Party for challenging Trump. Republicans label those with outlier views RINOs.
Thomas gets pushback. Cheney gets pushback. Water is wet.
We built a gigantic industry on that basis, of which Kennedy is a part. He's right about one thing, however. Once you invoke or perpetuate the identity politics of WE/US of whatever race, there's fealty or betrayal in relation to the group. You will then misunderstand what group you actually belong to because your identity is nostalgic and not based on the people with whom you share things in common now, rather than the ones you had back on the South side.
Thomas' problem is not that, that's for sure. His problem is being a guy who benefited from reverse discrimination, sexually harassed a junior colleague, then got another racialist nod from GHW Bush to be further elevated, all while appearing to be a compassionless, corrupt dirtbag who just has one opinion I happen to agree with.