I've read your post about Clarence Thomas and quickly scanned your longer City Journal essay. One thing that surprised me is that you didn't acknowledge the sharp contrast between Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall, the man he replaced on the Supreme Court. I'm also surprised you didn't mention the rough treatment of Robert Bork when he was nominated to the court a few years before.
This isn't a knock against Justice Thomas, but the black jurist who replaced Justice Marshall, the court's first black member, was destined for intense scrutiny. The treatment of Robert Bork, nominated by Reagan a few years earlier, set the tone for the rough treatment Clarence Thomas received when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court.
The early childhoods of Marshall and Thomas, while different, involve upbringings under often-difficult circumstances. One can argue that Justice Thomas had it worse in Pin Point, Georgia, but Justice Marshall's childhood in Baltimore was no cakewalk either
Academically, Justice Thomas attended majority institutions (Holy Cross and Yale Law School) while Justice Marshall attended HBCU's (Lincoln University, PA and Howard Law School). Republicans nurtured Justice Thomas. Justice Marshall, by contrast, was a product of and ultimately a hero of the civil rights movement. One could argue that Justice Marshall opened the door for Clarence Thomas to attend majority institutions
George H.W. Bush, the guy whose presidential campaign gave us the infamous Willie Horton ads, nominated Justice Thomas. Suffice it to say that a lot of black people didn't hold Bush 41 in high regard. Lyndon Johnson nominated Justice Marshall. Many say he did more for civil rights than any president in American history. One can argue about whether President Johnson's policies were ultimately misguided, but he was revered by a lot of black people.
Justice Thomas held conservative views when he was nominated to the court. Justice Marshall held progressive views about civil rights while he was on the court. The contrast between the two was stark, as were the differences in how Black America responded to them.
I'm only scratching the surface of the backgrounds of both justices. The Wikipedia offers opportunities for deep dives into the backgrounds of Justice Marshall and Justice Thomas.:
Add it all up, and it's not surprising that a lot of black people were unhappy when Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. The Anita Hill accusations and the clown show that masqueraded as confirmation hearings guaranteed that Black America's take on Justice Thomas would be negative. His reaction to the hearings (e.g., calling them a "high tech lynching of a black man" or something to that effect), his unwillingness to offer an olive branch to Black America afterwards, his reluctance to say much during court proceedings, and his appropriately stoic non-responses to personal and often unfair attacks have made it easy for many black folks not to like him.
All the above are part of the Clarence Thomas story, but there's so much more.
You've documented his influence as a jurist, but Justice Thomas is also part of a conversation that needs to be had about whether members of the Supreme Court should be paid more and what kinds of restraints should be placed around gifts they can receive and outside income they can earn while on the court. Justice Thomas is also part of a conversation about acceptable behavior by the spouses of members of the Supreme Court.
Last, but not least, Justice Thomas is part of a conversation about Americans lack of trust in most institutions. The Supreme Court should call balls and strikes regardless of popular sentiment, but one can't ignore the public's overall erosion of trust in it. A recent Gallup poll documents this:
Justice Thomas didn't create this problem, but it's not clear that he's doing much to turn things around either
To make a long story short, there's way more to Justice Thomas and his impact than his blackness and his relationship with black folks. I know that's the focus of your upcoming conversation, but that's missing the forest for the trees. It's unfortunate that people put Justice Thomas in a "black box." It's the same nonsense that President Bidden pushed when he nominated Justice Jackson to the court. That's disrespectful to Thomas and Jackson because it undermines their legitimacy as worthy members of the court. It furthers racial divisions as well.
The topic came up numerous times during the discussion. I recently wrote below about the diversity of beliefs and political persuasions within every demographic (race, sex, nationality, etc), and that there is no one "authentic" voice for a group. For example, as I'm Jewish and am keenly aware of the diversity of views amongst Jews, including on the topics of Israel and the Israel-Gaza War. The diversity of views within a demographic are "authentic."
Not close to a fair fight. Glenn was completely reasoned and rational, Kennedy was all ideology and rhetoric, no substantive arguments. I have not read Kennedy’s work but based on this performance I don’t understand Glenn’s respect for his intellectual honesty.
I am very glad to see you doing this. I have followed, admired and sympathized with Justice Thomas ever since his SCOTUS hearings so disgracefully marred by Joe Biden and Anita Hill. He deserves to be seen and publicly recognized for his original thinking and the influence he has had on American jurisprudence, by you and as many other prominent and respected thinkers as possible.
Much of the animosity toward him comes from the fact that he doesn't rule from the bench but does his job, ie to tell us what the law IS, not what he would wish it to be - that and the fact he was a member of a racial minority who was nominated by a Republican President, something that Democrats seem to think should be their exclusive prerogative.
You say "Among conservatives, he is celebrated for his efforts to limit the power of the federal government, preserve individual liberties, and ensure equal treatment before the law. ..... [But} among black critics especially, Thomas is accused of racial disloyalty—a line of argument that seeks to diminish his historic achievements." These are all more reasons for my high regard and deep sympathy for him.
I am signed up (Bonnie Beresford, retired neuroscientist). I look forward to this greatly.
Dr. Loury, thank you for sharing yourself and your thinking!
I'm excited to listen to your livestream event on Justice Thomas. Thank you for sharing so much with us. I have a dream podcast or interview that I'd like to suggest; I'm anticipating that this one has already come to your mind.
My dream podcast/interview is you and Dr. Thomas Sowell in conversation about your respective life's learnings, how they share common messages, and differences where appropriate. I hate to say it this way, but there is only so much time when two such intellectual giants could have such a conversation. I think the world would be better for it, and that the discussion would have a long-lived value well beyond the next news cycle.
My over-the-top dream would be the two of you talking TO young people about decisions they make, paths they take, and challenges they face...and about challenges that they choose to accept and work their way through, rather than giving up on or looking for a handout for.
Read the longer piece and I gather you like the guy - plain and simple. As other commenters have touched on, you leave a lot of valid, non-racial criticism of Justice Thomas out of your piece. Things that call his character and principles into question.
I will say, based off my understanding of your perspective when it comes to race based Affirmative Action, Justice Thomas should have never been nominated to the court in the first place based off "merit." For all intents and purposes, he wasn't a brilliant legal scholar nor did he do anything of compelling legal significance in his career prior to his appointment. Let's face it, as another commenter in the thread pointed out and John McWhorter did too on a podcast episode with you, major drivers of his appointment were his race paired with his conservative perspective, and the fact he was replacing a black justice. I doubt Thomas, a federal judge with less than 3 years of experience on the bench, would've been nominated if the vacant supreme court seat was created by the other justices and not Thurgood Marshall.
A couple of thoughts on this essay from my perspective (liberal middle-aged white guy).
1. Glenn writes: "However controversial he may be, and however unrepentantly conservative his views, it is no longer possible to deny his stature and his influence on American life and law. "
This is absolutely true, and one doesn't have to like his jurisprudence to recognize that.
It is almost funny, in retrospect, to think that he was once widely considered to be Antonin Scalia's mini-me, by liberals and conservatives alike. Especially as this current court and legal conservatives continue to venerate Scalia even as they go about weakening or reversing many of his key decisions.
Is this more Thomas' court or Roberts'? I think the anwser is that it is actually Brett Kavanaugh's court, because he is the median justice. But to the extent that Thomas and his wealthy benefactors have pulled the entire conservative legal movement to the right, maybe it is his court.
2. Thomas' historic importance aside, I cannot look past the recent revalations of two decades of financial corruption. One thing that no Supreme Court justice should ever have is a wealthy patron (or patrons). He should have chosen between personal wealth (which he could easily have acquired any time he wanted by retiring) and legal influence (by remaining on the court). He chose both and that is irredeemable corrupt.
I greatly prefer the jurisprudence of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson to that of Thomas. But if it were to turn out that, say, Kagan was routinely being showered with lavish gifts by liberal interest groups involved in litigation before the court, that a rich liberal benefactor had actually purchased a home where her parents or other family lived and was renovating the place and allowing them to live there rent free, and that she routinely socialized with Democratic activists intend on manipulation of the court to serve liberal ends, I would think her corrupt, too.
"Among black critics especially, Thomas is accused of racial disloyalty—"
Only a racist could make such a claim. Only someone who has presupposed beliefs about what people of a certain race are supposed to think could make such a statement.
Dear Glenn,
I've read your post about Clarence Thomas and quickly scanned your longer City Journal essay. One thing that surprised me is that you didn't acknowledge the sharp contrast between Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall, the man he replaced on the Supreme Court. I'm also surprised you didn't mention the rough treatment of Robert Bork when he was nominated to the court a few years before.
This isn't a knock against Justice Thomas, but the black jurist who replaced Justice Marshall, the court's first black member, was destined for intense scrutiny. The treatment of Robert Bork, nominated by Reagan a few years earlier, set the tone for the rough treatment Clarence Thomas received when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court.
The early childhoods of Marshall and Thomas, while different, involve upbringings under often-difficult circumstances. One can argue that Justice Thomas had it worse in Pin Point, Georgia, but Justice Marshall's childhood in Baltimore was no cakewalk either
Academically, Justice Thomas attended majority institutions (Holy Cross and Yale Law School) while Justice Marshall attended HBCU's (Lincoln University, PA and Howard Law School). Republicans nurtured Justice Thomas. Justice Marshall, by contrast, was a product of and ultimately a hero of the civil rights movement. One could argue that Justice Marshall opened the door for Clarence Thomas to attend majority institutions
George H.W. Bush, the guy whose presidential campaign gave us the infamous Willie Horton ads, nominated Justice Thomas. Suffice it to say that a lot of black people didn't hold Bush 41 in high regard. Lyndon Johnson nominated Justice Marshall. Many say he did more for civil rights than any president in American history. One can argue about whether President Johnson's policies were ultimately misguided, but he was revered by a lot of black people.
Justice Thomas held conservative views when he was nominated to the court. Justice Marshall held progressive views about civil rights while he was on the court. The contrast between the two was stark, as were the differences in how Black America responded to them.
I'm only scratching the surface of the backgrounds of both justices. The Wikipedia offers opportunities for deep dives into the backgrounds of Justice Marshall and Justice Thomas.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Add it all up, and it's not surprising that a lot of black people were unhappy when Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. The Anita Hill accusations and the clown show that masqueraded as confirmation hearings guaranteed that Black America's take on Justice Thomas would be negative. His reaction to the hearings (e.g., calling them a "high tech lynching of a black man" or something to that effect), his unwillingness to offer an olive branch to Black America afterwards, his reluctance to say much during court proceedings, and his appropriately stoic non-responses to personal and often unfair attacks have made it easy for many black folks not to like him.
All the above are part of the Clarence Thomas story, but there's so much more.
You've documented his influence as a jurist, but Justice Thomas is also part of a conversation that needs to be had about whether members of the Supreme Court should be paid more and what kinds of restraints should be placed around gifts they can receive and outside income they can earn while on the court. Justice Thomas is also part of a conversation about acceptable behavior by the spouses of members of the Supreme Court.
Last, but not least, Justice Thomas is part of a conversation about Americans lack of trust in most institutions. The Supreme Court should call balls and strikes regardless of popular sentiment, but one can't ignore the public's overall erosion of trust in it. A recent Gallup poll documents this:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/511820/views-supreme-court-remain-near-record-lows.aspx
Justice Thomas didn't create this problem, but it's not clear that he's doing much to turn things around either
To make a long story short, there's way more to Justice Thomas and his impact than his blackness and his relationship with black folks. I know that's the focus of your upcoming conversation, but that's missing the forest for the trees. It's unfortunate that people put Justice Thomas in a "black box." It's the same nonsense that President Bidden pushed when he nominated Justice Jackson to the court. That's disrespectful to Thomas and Jackson because it undermines their legitimacy as worthy members of the court. It furthers racial divisions as well.
The topic came up numerous times during the discussion. I recently wrote below about the diversity of beliefs and political persuasions within every demographic (race, sex, nationality, etc), and that there is no one "authentic" voice for a group. For example, as I'm Jewish and am keenly aware of the diversity of views amongst Jews, including on the topics of Israel and the Israel-Gaza War. The diversity of views within a demographic are "authentic."
https://davidcycleback.substack.com/p/when-uplifting-minority-voices-means
Not close to a fair fight. Glenn was completely reasoned and rational, Kennedy was all ideology and rhetoric, no substantive arguments. I have not read Kennedy’s work but based on this performance I don’t understand Glenn’s respect for his intellectual honesty.
Thoughtful and well written. I don’t always agree with Justice Thomas, but the hidden racism in all the Ad-hominem attacks on him is outrageous.
I have registered and will join! Looking forward to it!
I am very glad to see you doing this. I have followed, admired and sympathized with Justice Thomas ever since his SCOTUS hearings so disgracefully marred by Joe Biden and Anita Hill. He deserves to be seen and publicly recognized for his original thinking and the influence he has had on American jurisprudence, by you and as many other prominent and respected thinkers as possible.
Much of the animosity toward him comes from the fact that he doesn't rule from the bench but does his job, ie to tell us what the law IS, not what he would wish it to be - that and the fact he was a member of a racial minority who was nominated by a Republican President, something that Democrats seem to think should be their exclusive prerogative.
You say "Among conservatives, he is celebrated for his efforts to limit the power of the federal government, preserve individual liberties, and ensure equal treatment before the law. ..... [But} among black critics especially, Thomas is accused of racial disloyalty—a line of argument that seeks to diminish his historic achievements." These are all more reasons for my high regard and deep sympathy for him.
I am signed up (Bonnie Beresford, retired neuroscientist). I look forward to this greatly.
Dr. Loury, thank you for sharing yourself and your thinking!
I'm excited to listen to your livestream event on Justice Thomas. Thank you for sharing so much with us. I have a dream podcast or interview that I'd like to suggest; I'm anticipating that this one has already come to your mind.
My dream podcast/interview is you and Dr. Thomas Sowell in conversation about your respective life's learnings, how they share common messages, and differences where appropriate. I hate to say it this way, but there is only so much time when two such intellectual giants could have such a conversation. I think the world would be better for it, and that the discussion would have a long-lived value well beyond the next news cycle.
My over-the-top dream would be the two of you talking TO young people about decisions they make, paths they take, and challenges they face...and about challenges that they choose to accept and work their way through, rather than giving up on or looking for a handout for.
Again, thank you.
Read the longer piece and I gather you like the guy - plain and simple. As other commenters have touched on, you leave a lot of valid, non-racial criticism of Justice Thomas out of your piece. Things that call his character and principles into question.
I will say, based off my understanding of your perspective when it comes to race based Affirmative Action, Justice Thomas should have never been nominated to the court in the first place based off "merit." For all intents and purposes, he wasn't a brilliant legal scholar nor did he do anything of compelling legal significance in his career prior to his appointment. Let's face it, as another commenter in the thread pointed out and John McWhorter did too on a podcast episode with you, major drivers of his appointment were his race paired with his conservative perspective, and the fact he was replacing a black justice. I doubt Thomas, a federal judge with less than 3 years of experience on the bench, would've been nominated if the vacant supreme court seat was created by the other justices and not Thurgood Marshall.
A couple of thoughts on this essay from my perspective (liberal middle-aged white guy).
1. Glenn writes: "However controversial he may be, and however unrepentantly conservative his views, it is no longer possible to deny his stature and his influence on American life and law. "
This is absolutely true, and one doesn't have to like his jurisprudence to recognize that.
It is almost funny, in retrospect, to think that he was once widely considered to be Antonin Scalia's mini-me, by liberals and conservatives alike. Especially as this current court and legal conservatives continue to venerate Scalia even as they go about weakening or reversing many of his key decisions.
Is this more Thomas' court or Roberts'? I think the anwser is that it is actually Brett Kavanaugh's court, because he is the median justice. But to the extent that Thomas and his wealthy benefactors have pulled the entire conservative legal movement to the right, maybe it is his court.
2. Thomas' historic importance aside, I cannot look past the recent revalations of two decades of financial corruption. One thing that no Supreme Court justice should ever have is a wealthy patron (or patrons). He should have chosen between personal wealth (which he could easily have acquired any time he wanted by retiring) and legal influence (by remaining on the court). He chose both and that is irredeemable corrupt.
I greatly prefer the jurisprudence of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson to that of Thomas. But if it were to turn out that, say, Kagan was routinely being showered with lavish gifts by liberal interest groups involved in litigation before the court, that a rich liberal benefactor had actually purchased a home where her parents or other family lived and was renovating the place and allowing them to live there rent free, and that she routinely socialized with Democratic activists intend on manipulation of the court to serve liberal ends, I would think her corrupt, too.
Registered! Loury, George, and Shapiro are enough for me, even with Kennedy on stage.
Randell Kennedy is a joke - he was defending the racist, plagiarist gay ! Cannot watch because of him -
"Among black critics especially, Thomas is accused of racial disloyalty—"
Only a racist could make such a claim. Only someone who has presupposed beliefs about what people of a certain race are supposed to think could make such a statement.