Seems more likely that he is bitter because, from his perspective, he had his name dragged through the mud. Since he was writing his autobiography, it would have been odd to leave that episode out. The fact that he is giving us his perspective on it should be of no surprise.
And while Ms. Hill does not currently “wander the countryside making derogatory comments about Thomas”, she did have her day in the spotlight when she published her book (“Speaking Truth to Power”), in which she brought the whole episode up again. I don’t know for sure that she did the talk-show circuit to promote her book, as Thomas is doing now, but it’s probably a good guess that she did.
Thing is, it makes no sense to think that “the liberals” somehow manufactured the whole thing to attack Thomas in order to keep a pro-life justice off the court. Because what would have happened if Thomas had been defeated? Well, GHWBush was still president, and he would have just nominated ANOTHER pro-life candidate, and then another, and another, and another, and so on. There’s just no upside, unless you go the Shodan route and think that the democrats’ objective was not to actually affect the makeup of the supreme court, but simply to publically punish an Uncle Tom. Suuuuuure.
The big difference between the Lewinsky affair and the Anita Hill thing is what the party-doing-the-attacking has to gain. If Thomas isn’t confirmed, then wait 4 months, someone else will be (and it’s generally thought that the country only has enough energy for one or two confirmation fights… eventually someone will get in just out of fatigue). If Clinton is impeached and removed from office, Gore becomes president, but a horribly crippled president, and it’s a huge black eye for democrats for a long time to come. Bricker: Do you believe Anita Hill was telling the truth, yes or no? Why or why not?
OTOH, lefty law frims and institutions probably have tons of minority candidates coming through their doors every day. How many of these candidates would bother with looking for work with right-wing conservatives? So when Thomas came through the door, he would really stand out.
Not back then. Not Black lawyers from Yale. This was, what, 30 years ago?
And keep in mind that Danforth isn’t a right-wing Republican. He’s generally considered a moderate, and although he is an ordained minister, he has been quite vocal in his distaste for how the GOP has pandered to the Religious Right. From an editorial he wrote a few years ago in the NYT:
He’s also the author of the book “Faith and Politics: How the ‘Moral Values’ Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together.”
When you say stuff like that, it always sounds to me as though you’re trivializing the latter half of the sentence. Well, of COURSE I want someone whose brand of social change is the kind I want. Duh!
In choosing a supreme court judge, my goal is not to have a keen supreme court. My goal is to have a better world. I want people who value principle over precedent, but not just any old principle: I want people who value the same principles I value. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
And yes, of course folks with different principles will want the same thing, only different. That, too, seems like a no-brainer. Resolving this conflict between us by trying to keep principle out of the equation seems to me barely better than resolving it through a game of rock-paper-scissors. I want my principles to win, goddammit.
To follow up on what LHod said, I’d add that it’s obvious that different well-meaning Justices can reach very different conclusions about the same case before them, and that those principles might have something to do with it. If I believe Roe v. Wade should continue to be the law of the land, why shouldn’t I advocate for more Justices of the sort who, on a principled basis, will reaffirm it, rather than for those who will, on an equally principled basis I’m sure, vote to overturn it?
Because there are those who find fault with it divorced from any personal principles (e.g., Justice Ginsberg). And there are those who hold the apparently foolish position that a Justice’s job is not to apply personal principles but to uphold the Constitution, as it is written, as it was ratified and amended. Personal beliefs are a filter that makes this difficult for all of us humans, of course. That doesn’t make it a lost cause. “But that’s not what I’d prefer” isn’t a valid reason to ignore text or create “rights.” The fact that a Justice can do whatever he wants, by and large, doesn’t mean he should.
I personally accept the fact that our democratic process allows for laws that I find distasteful but constitutional. That’s just the way it is.
She makes reference to those who have investigated her claims. The key source in that regard is the book by the Wall Street Journal and New Yorker reporters, Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas by Jane Meyer and Jill Abramson. Unlike David Brock, that pair has not subsequently claimed that their facts were fabricated.
On the contrary, I think that desiring to uphold the constitution is equivalent to desiring a personal principle: belief in the desirability of a really good system of government is belief in a principle. It’s principles all the way down, man. It’s just that I see a good system of government as a means to an end, not an end of itself.
I don’t think that’s a “duh!” at all…the Supreme Court shouldn’t be an instrument of social change…not the kind you want, not the kind I want, not the kind anyone wants. It’s not their role.
Perhaps we could invent an institution that should be an instrument of social change. We could call it “Congress”, and we could elect the members of that institution for a limited term so that they are accountable to the people for the type of social change they advocate.
No, wait…I think you just might be onto something!
It’s weird to me that people would want a tiny group of people who they have no control over appointing and who they have no means of removal other than death to be their preferred instrument of social change. It’s such a high-risk proposition.
[hijack]
I’m not so sure John Mace, ideally that would be the case. But wouldn’t it easier to let the court’s decide the issues? It’s a win-win–either way you can pontificate by speaking for or against the decision depending on which way the wind blows with respect to one’s constituency. So congress is lazy–lazy like a fox, I say!
I need clarification though. Doesn’t Congress have the statute authority to restrict a court’s jurisdiction? If so, wouldn’t this be a more efficacious process of limiting “judicial activism”?
Feel free to enlighten me.
We now return to our regularly scheduled skewering at the BBQ Pit
[/highjack]
I see. So the Brown decision is regrettable, the imposition of justice upon the unwilling. Not prudent.
And when, exactly, would black people have advanced their equality by imposing political power they did not possess? Our system utterly failed these people, its citizens, the enfranchisement that is its fundamental energy was not theirs. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither is it Holy Writ, it can suffer a bit of bending without snapping. Heaven knows it has been twisted enough to serve the interests of the mighty, why then is it a sacrilege to bend it on behalf of the worthy?
Have we not recovered from this desecration? Indeed, have we not positively benefited by this? I daresay.
Yes, of course, but that’s kind of a silly point. The one principle I see in play is the one that recommends that we rely on legislators to establish law and on justices to apply the law as it was written. The collective principles beyond that are an amorphous cloud subject to the biases and sensibilities of whomever is appointed at the moment. The Constitution ought not be treated so cavalierly, not for “justice,” and certainly not for convenience, IMO.
So, yes, the notion that all other principles (as we’re discussing them) ought not be in play is a principle itself. So what? And I too see a good system of government as a means to an end too. I just accept the fact that a process that denies such judicial abuse (or ought to) serves the greater long-term goal, even when it does not permit what I want in a given circumstance.
Are you arguing that this decision was poorly argued? I’m no expert, but I have not typically heard this decision as one that created a right not explicit in the Constitution–in this case, equal protection as noted in the 14th amendment. Even Bork agreed with it, as I recall. But the fact that it created social change was coincidental. I don’t want that to sound as if I trivialize such an effect, which was clearer timely, just and tremendously important. The point is not that Justices ought to avoid social change, the point is that such a change should be irrelevant to their decision (as we’re discussing, that is). So I think your argument appeals to popular sentiment but misses the point.
Again, no constitutional scholar I. And it is a given that even a good faith attempt to remain true to the text of the Constitution may not always be fully successful–we’re all human. But that ought to be a Justice’s goal, right?
I agree with this. I am not an expert on the Constitution, either, but from everything I’ve read, I definitely think that Brown was a decision more solidly based in the Constitution than, say, Roe was.
If you study the Court, you will see that they rarely get too ahead of where the country is going. “Brown” is overrated. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (an act of Congress) that was the turning point in civil rights for Blacks in the US. Until then, Blacks were still riding at the back of the bus, eating at different counters, sitting up in the balcony at movies, and disenfranchised in much of the South. “Brown” didn’t fix any of those things. Sure, it was an important step, but anyone who studies history knows that the the major civil rights marches, protests and actions came after “Brown”, not before.