This was one of the best episodes of the Glenn show I have ever seen. I have some thoughts on the final question raised by Glenn.
I think there are a couple of significant differences between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas, apart from ideology. Barack Obama is a politician. He is flexible. He is someone who is comfortable (or at least willing) to temper his positions to make them more politically palatable. For instance, Obama was opposed to same-sex marriage until it was safe for his position to “evolve.” He is also an excellent public speaker. Say what you will, but the man can give a speech. He appears to be comfortable living his life in public.
Clarence Thomas on the other hand is a much different, much more private person. I don't know him personally, but I got to speak to him briefly when he gave a speech at my law school. This was in 1997, more than 5 years after his vicious confirmation fight. It was obvious from some of the things he said that he was still angry over it. For instance, during his speech, he said he wasn't allowed to believe the things he believed because of the color of his skin. Up to that point, there had been a tendency for Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to move toward the center over time. For instance, compare the early opinions of Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy with some of their later ones. But listening to Justice Thomas speak, I recall thinking that there was very little chance he would moderate his positions over time. He wouldn't want to give his critics the satisfaction. Justice Thomas has demonstrated that he is unwilling to modify any of his beliefs to be more popular.
One of the fundamental differences between how the public sees President Obama and Justice Thomas is that Thomas generally speaks through his opinions while Obama speaks by speaking. As a recovering lawyer deeply interested in constitutional law, I find it frustrating that the news media, not to mention the public, only seems to care about the outcome of a case as opposed to the reasoning behind that outcome. Add to that the general left-wing bias of the media that results in numerous stories about Justice Thomas' heartless rulings. So most of the public doesn't hear the reasoning behind his rulings. I think that to many people, Justice Thomas is just a Black man that sold his soul to heartless Republicans and doesn't care about other Black people.
There is another difference between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas that might explain some of the differences in how the public sees them. In the early 1990s, P.J. O'Rourke wrote an article titled “100 Reasons Why Jimmy Carter Was A Better President Than Bill Clinton.” One of those reasons was that Jimmy Carter had a much nicer wife. It has become increasingly clear over the last couple of years that Barack Obama has a much nicer wife than Justice Thomas. Until the very end of the Trump administration, I would have said that Obama benefited from the high regard the American people have for Michelle, but that Ginni didn't detract from how the public saw Justice Thomas. Well, the public other than racists that objected to his marrying a white woman at least. That is no longer the case. By embracing the stolen election nonsense, Ginni Thomas has made it easier for Democrats to argue that Justice Thomas is all about achieving conservative results rather than following the law and constitution as he understood it. It has also probably made the damage from the allegations that he has had an improper relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow worse than it would otherwise have been. But that story is still in progress. Still, I would advise anyone who has a spouse on a short list for the Supreme Court to NOT pursue a career as a political operative.
This was one of the best episodes of the Glenn show I have ever seen. I have some thoughts on the final question raised by Glenn.
I think there are a couple of significant differences between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas, apart from ideology. Barack Obama is a politician. He is flexible. He is someone who is comfortable (or at least willing) to temper his positions to make them more politically palatable. For instance, Obama was opposed to same-sex marriage until it was safe for his position to “evolve.” He is also an excellent public speaker. Say what you will, but the man can give a speech. He appears to be comfortable living his life in public.
Clarence Thomas on the other hand is a much different, much more private person. I don't know him personally, but I got to speak to him briefly when he gave a speech at my law school. This was in 1997, more than 5 years after his vicious confirmation fight. It was obvious from some of the things he said that he was still angry over it. For instance, during his speech, he said he wasn't allowed to believe the things he believed because of the color of his skin. Up to that point, there had been a tendency for Republican appointees to the Supreme Court to move toward the center over time. For instance, compare the early opinions of Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy with some of their later ones. But listening to Justice Thomas speak, I recall thinking that there was very little chance he would moderate his positions over time. He wouldn't want to give his critics the satisfaction. Justice Thomas has demonstrated that he is unwilling to modify any of his beliefs to be more popular.
One of the fundamental differences between how the public sees President Obama and Justice Thomas is that Thomas generally speaks through his opinions while Obama speaks by speaking. As a recovering lawyer deeply interested in constitutional law, I find it frustrating that the news media, not to mention the public, only seems to care about the outcome of a case as opposed to the reasoning behind that outcome. Add to that the general left-wing bias of the media that results in numerous stories about Justice Thomas' heartless rulings. So most of the public doesn't hear the reasoning behind his rulings. I think that to many people, Justice Thomas is just a Black man that sold his soul to heartless Republicans and doesn't care about other Black people.
There is another difference between Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas that might explain some of the differences in how the public sees them. In the early 1990s, P.J. O'Rourke wrote an article titled “100 Reasons Why Jimmy Carter Was A Better President Than Bill Clinton.” One of those reasons was that Jimmy Carter had a much nicer wife. It has become increasingly clear over the last couple of years that Barack Obama has a much nicer wife than Justice Thomas. Until the very end of the Trump administration, I would have said that Obama benefited from the high regard the American people have for Michelle, but that Ginni didn't detract from how the public saw Justice Thomas. Well, the public other than racists that objected to his marrying a white woman at least. That is no longer the case. By embracing the stolen election nonsense, Ginni Thomas has made it easier for Democrats to argue that Justice Thomas is all about achieving conservative results rather than following the law and constitution as he understood it. It has also probably made the damage from the allegations that he has had an improper relationship with billionaire Harlan Crow worse than it would otherwise have been. But that story is still in progress. Still, I would advise anyone who has a spouse on a short list for the Supreme Court to NOT pursue a career as a political operative.