I saw Justice O’Connor deliver a public speech in 1991 that discussed general legal topics. This wasn’t uncommon for her or other justices, I’ll bet.
In addition, she published two memoirs before her retirement.
I think justices would be wise to avoid commenting on pending cases or topics likely to come before the Court, at least in specific terms. But I see no requirement that they or any other judge shut up entirely.
This is the SDMB. You should know by know that a " lie detector test" is about as reliable and scientific as Phrenology. :rolleyes:
And, I have little doubt that AH did remember what she said happened, and also that CT remembered it differently. 20 years is whaaaaaay too fucking long to rely upon memory.
I read elucidator’s post— in fact, just re-read it, to make sure I didn’t miss anything— and I could swear he was speculating specifically on Thomas’s rather spectacular political conversion (about as far as one can convert, really, without circumnavigating; Jeffrey Toobin recently described him as “the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s,” making even Scalia appear a lefty by comparison) and not addressing the inner motives of conservatives generally.
I admit that I’m surprised by your frank admission, but since I believe you to be a true conservative I will take you at your word. Do you have any regrets about the sale of your own soul (lamenting not holding out for a higher bid, perhaps) and is the Ambien helping you to sleep through the night terrors?
Did he seriously say that white liberals are worse than the KKK, or was that just a whoosh?
Now, that is a little unfair. The ways of error are legion. Whereas there is only one true path of righteousness. Repent and be saved?
Shouldn’t it be possible to question Thomas’ motivation and his philosophical development in light of his background and early political, social and religious history without disparaging him or anyone else? He is a major historical figure who happens to be black. His political philosophy is so far from mainstream America as to make him a curiosity. The fact that he is even more distant from the majority of black citizens and black thinkers and academics makes him even more unusual. There appears to me to be no harm in asking why? The fact that he seems to have no valid reason other than the perceived slight to his accomplishment due to the implementation of affirmative action makes it even more likely that his positions are not deeply felt convictions but convenient conclusions based on loyalty rather than reasoning.
The fact that some other black person is a true conservative embracing all of the traditional conservative priciples and values has nothing to do with the investigation of Thomas, especially when one considers the variance between traditional conservative values and those adopted by current conservative leaders, including Thomas. It is not necessary for a person to have wealth to think that a “conservative” ideology is superior to a “liberal” one and I am sure there are some well-known conservative thinkers of moderate means, I mean there must be one somewhere right?
Could it possibly be as simple as accurate reporting?
Accurate reporting wouldn’t make a judgment comment - it would simply say “He graduated in the middle of his class at Yale.”
It being YALE LAW SCHOOL, we’d all recognize that is, in fact, an accomplishment.
But pointing out that the middle of the class in any law school is “doing well” - most overachievers don’t seem to be happy in the middle of their law school graduating class. Being in the middle is, in fact, “doing average.” Granted, its doing average at Yale - a little different that graduating from law school in the middle of your class at South Podunk State.
You might be right regarding the judgment comment; it wasn’t necessary but I don’t see it as being racist or implying low expectations for any reason at all. In fact, I wouldn’t have noticed it if it hadn’t been pointed out.
Clarence Thomas is still insisting that, gee, he didn’t have any opinion at all about Roe v. Wade prior to joining the court, but that afterwards, wow, he studied it in detail and discovered that he was against it.
I tend to judge the truth of his other claims in the light of this one.
A shilling is a lot of money to pay for an asswipe, IMO - or was pre-1971, at any rate: the point’s moot now.
I’d be interested in seeing where the other justices went to school and how they did. I guess I always thought they were Law Review, Order of the Coif types at the top of their classes at the top schools - but I certainly may be mistaken. I know that is generally what you need to clerk for them…
Has the issue of Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas ever been debated in the SDMB? If so, can someone point me to the thread(s)? This sounds like a fascinating event.
It strains mine. Were there no lefty lawyers eager to embrace a young African-American and get him going in the field of law? How about a lefty (or even left of center) Congresscritter? Not a one? And if there weren’t, maybe that led the young Thomas to disillusionment in the left.
After all, we do know it’s possible for someone to go from being an admirer of the libertarian-like ideals of Ayn Rand as a youth to being a radical lefty. Don’t we?
But frankly, neither you nor I are mind readers. I see no reason to question the motives of someone with Thomas’ background. Seems like his grandfather was a man of principle who taught Thomas to be a self-responsible person, which can easily be the foundation of a philosophy he follows now.
In case anyone is interested Anita Hill did address the new book here.
Good for her.
I just cuddle up to my big, soft pillow stuffed with $50 and $100 bills taken from the pockets of the working class and let the smell of currency lull me to sleep.
He did. I think he may be the only person not currently in the KKK who could say that with a straight face. I mean, that would have been a pretty extreme statement even for Ann Coulter.
I think this bears repeating. And me-too-ing. The guy sits down and tells a baldfaced lie under oath, and then he’s mad that only a bare majority of senators believed him later.
There’s a good practical reason for sitting judges at any level to avoid commentary on issues: that commentary may come back to haunt them in the form of a case in front of them where the issues are similar enough that one party to the case may reasonably question the judge’s neutrality on the issue.
At the Supreme Court, of course, justices deal only with the law, as opposed to the facts of a particular case. It’s not inappropriate, in my view, for a justice to speak publicly about what the role of the Supreme Court should be, and about what judicial philosophy guides their work, and the method of analysis they believe should be applied to the law. If a sitting justice announces a particular fondness for, say, public recitation of the Pledge of Allegience, on the other hand, he may find it expedient to recuse himself on any future Pledge cases that come before him.
Just to pick a wildly improbable example. 