Who's the most attention-riveting member of the Supreme Court? Antonin Scalia has his fans, but for many people it's no contest: the answer is Clarence Thomas.
Thomas's ability to command popular attention has little to do with his judicial philosophy — most Americans don't know what it is — and everything to do with his arresting demeanor and personal history. Triumphing over adversity has rarely taken such dramatic twists and turns.
Now Justice Thomas is the subject of a new biography, Supreme Discomfort (Doubleday). Written by two African-American journalists at The Washington Post, Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher, it's no hatchet job — Merida and Fletcher are serious writers — but neither is the book as even-handed and unbiased as its authors might like to think.
In their telling, this is the story of a conflicted, sensitive man with, in the words of their subtitle, a "divided soul." The division presumably is between Thomas's race and his conservative philosophy. That an intelligent African-American might come naturally by a conservative view of the world seems not to occur to them. (Thomas's religion — he's a practicing Roman Catholic — is discussed extensively, but at a superficial level.)
Born in poverty in Georgia, raised by a grandfather who practiced tough love, educated in Catholic schools, Holy Cross College, and Yale law school, Thomas rose rapidly in government service, holding posts like chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a federal judgeship.
President George H.W. Bush named him to the Supreme Court in 1991. Thereupon followed the famous — or infamous — Anita Hill episode during which a former employee accused him of sexual harassment. As recounted here, it's a classic he-said, she-said story, with key facts probably forever in dispute.
For Merida and Fletcher, however, as for Thomas's black critics generally, the heart of the problem he represents is his opposition to race-based affirmative action. Blacks should be for it, the authors make clear, and Thomas deserves much blame for being opposed.
Cited approvingly in this context is the audacious claim made, by African-American historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr., that affirmative action is the contemporary equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. If that's so, of course, then obviously no right-thinking African-American — indeed, no right-thinking American of any race — can possibly be opposed.
Thomas's reply is, in effect, that affirmative action is a mistake because it demeans the achievements of blacks. What is accomplished by hard work and ability gets attributed to preferential treatment based on race. Whether that strikes you as right or wrong, it's scarcely a trivial point. As with many complex issues, there's probably truth on both sides of the argument. The Supreme Court itself is still seeking the correct balance in the question.
But Thomas's critics aren't having any part of that — and this ultimately is the biggest flaw in Supreme Discomfort. Merida and Fletcher stack the deck against their man, basing their critique on the debatable assumption that his stand on the fundamental issue raised about him is unacceptable on its face. That's called begging the question. If Clarence Thomas hasn't proved his case on affirmative action, neither have critics like the authors of this biography proved theirs.
Merida and Fletcher talked to hundreds of people in preparing this study. Not all of them know much about Thomas, although they get quoted anyway. But Thomas himself refused to be interviewed. The media are "malicious," he explained. This shunning of the media is offered as evidence of his paranoia, but although Merida and Fletcher aren't malicious — most journalists aren't — Thomas was right about some.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:44 am
A friend of mine asked Sen. Don Reigle, D-MI, to sponsor him to the Naval Academy a good while back. One of the senator's staffers asked him, "Don't you think blacks deserve preferential treatment to compensate them for slavery and discrimination?"
He said no, because that was also race-based discrimination, which was wrong no matter who was helped and who was hurt.
He was sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, and served the Navy as an officer and a gentleman for many years with distinction.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:53 am
It's difficult to get the truth out of anyone who has an "ax to grind". Apparently Merida and Fletcher do. I agree with Judge Thomas. The media are especially malicious to anyone who disagrees with their politics or philosophy on life.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Thank you Russell for pointing out the specific logic fallacy at work here, e.g. "begging the question." The more we writers point out specific names of irrationality, the sooner society will start recognizing bad journalism and demand truth.
——
Stan is owner of Nineveh's Crossing and author of "Trying to Fly With One Wing" the C.E. series on logic that appears semi-regularly, every other Thursdays.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:03 am
http://www.christineschult.com
The liberals who claim to be tolerant are in fact the most intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
I featured this article on my blog.
Christine
September 24th, 2007 at 8:29 am
The media don't know how not to be malicious, that is their culture. People like Judge Thomas have nothing to gain and everything to loose by trying to reason and communicate to someone who's depth of jurisprudence was rehersed on cue cards the night before. I went to hear him speak at the time my oldest was attending Holy Cross. I forget what the topics were but he showed himself to be open, unpretentious and very capable in handling the college forum. A most interesting individual who is an asset and a blessing to the Supreme Court.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Regarding the infamous Anita Hill episode "where key facts are in dispute." Jesse Jackson has a flesh and blood child born from adultery–tangible evidence of poor character– and he gets a pass a minute. So did MLK, jr who also committed adultery.
Judge Thomas is a courageous man, even if he is a sinner (the only one in the world apparenty, well I'm sure the media could find some dirt on JC Watts too), and I applaud him for his life (I'm jealous of you Goral for hearing him in person. Much can be discerned in person).
September 24th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
We know how the game is played by those who are left of center, it's not issues it's ad hominem attacks. Where is Anita now? As well as all the rest of the detractors. There are a lot of mind numbing and state altering drugs that are consumed in this country. This is just my guess - the majority of these drugs are taken by people who have a hard time sleeping at night because their conscience is telling them: "leave Virginia alone".
Thanks for the reminder Elka, of what a treat it was to see him in person. I missed my best chance to see John Paul in Toronto. That's regrettably on my mind.
Advice: anytime there's a chance to be in the presence of greatness do everything to be there, that moment remains with you always.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Thank you for your reminder, goral. Fr Groeschel was in my city this Friday for our Eucharistic Conference. I'm glad we got to hear him in person. His obvious frailty juxaposed to his vibrant zeal truly energizes one to apostolate.
Years ago, I was blessed by Fr Jozo, the parish priest at the time the Mejugorie apparitions of Mary began, at a Marian Conference (same conference center.) His holiness was palpable as he laid hands on me and blessed my unborn daughter. Almost twelve years later, I feel it was a defining moment of grace for me. I promised him then that I would pray for his "Bosnian babies" (as he called the orphans). To this day our family prays nightly that the "Bosnian babies feel loved and that all children of war have peace". Of course, a good laugh in our household is that the "babies" have moved from cribs to canes by now!
Also, Pope Benedict's sanctity is visible in person through the radiance in his eyes. My husband even said, upon hearing he is coming to the US that we'll travel hundreds of miles as a family to see. I felt truly inspired by my husband's determination. You have reenforced the human need to be in the presence of greatness.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Justice Thomas' clear thinking and personal resolve set him apart from several of his peers. His personal religious convictions are laudable, but he is a Justice, not a cleric. Let's pray that he continues to exercise the wisdom of Solomon in his role as a Justice, and that the words of the press and of media hacks continue to be written on the wind and have no impact him.