[livius]

He’s an excellent speaker because he’s very thoughtful, listens to the question, and tries to give a thorough response. I notice the Times described it as “rambling,” but that was because he thought his audience was genuinely interested in hearing a scholarly answer. And the important legal theory of the “dormant commerce clause” was obviously completely unknown to the reporter.

So I guess we have to have justices who can express themselves in ways intelligible to the dim bulb communications majors (or mostly, “majorettes”) who make up the reportorial staff of the MSM.

[DoughtyOne]

Interesting comments, some somewhat troubling...

His response on the 14th Amendment was spot on. I’m not surprised the writer of the article didn’t think that was a good one.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Thomas is a great man. That said, I don’t recall any “Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities” to which we are bound.
As for not “embracing” the Bill of Rights...was he supposed to wrap his arms around it, or what?

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[chrisser]

Anyone find the text of his remarks? I did some Googling, and all I can come up with are terse summaries.

Somehow, I don’t trust the analysis of a NYT “journalist”...

[Albion Wilde]

“This job is easy for people who’ve never done it,” Justice Thomas said later. “What I have found in this job is they know more about it than I do, especially if they have the title, law professor.”

The smarmy reporter presented this statement as if he were saying it without irony.

[Toki]

This very much sounds like the interview I heard in my media law class from Scalia.(I ended up finding the one professor who is somewhat of a conservative in a Comm. department no less). I truly was enlightening to see how the people at 20/20 could not understand what he was trying to say (it seems like the times maybe doing the same thing to Clarence Thomas). He just had to shut them down in the end, and say this is what I believe and leaving no space for the commentators to weasel in. I Know that Scalia (and now Thomas) has also been going around and trying to teach young people about his view of the constitution (that it isn’t a living doc). I can only hope it’s stuck in a couple people’s brains about the constitution is not a living document!

[Sudetenland]

I found what little that was reported of his comments were spot-on. We live in a society where too many expect their rights to come without their exercising responsibility.

Our rights do carry a price tag and that price tag is what he lables as obligations or responsibilities. Serving on a jury, voting, owning and knowing how to use a firearm; I consider all of those part of being a responsible citizen.

The only caveat I would add is that the Bill of Rights is not a grant or guarantee of rights, it is a prohibition imposed on the state not to infringe on those rights. The rights themselves pre-exist the state as they come from "our Creator," thus the state cannot legally infringe them.

I guess I am preaching to the choir here, but I really become concerned when the Bill of Rights is invoked as though it is a grant of rights from the state.

[giotto]

A few years ago I watched Thomas speaking to a group of young teens in a D.C. library. When he began, the faces of the kids reflected the brainwashing they had been subjected to concerning Thomas. They sat there stonefaced and sullen, barely looking at him as he spoke. But as he went on, they started to soften, and at one point, when he talked about what they could become in life, their eyes lit up. They sat up in their chairs, started asking questions, laughed at his humorous remarks. By the end of the presentation, they were enthusiastically crowding around him, shaking his hand, and smiling happily. They were like different kids.

The way Clarence Thomas has been treated by the left is absolutely heinous. But even more tragic is that young people have been TAUGHT to hate him.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

It looks like the journalist misunderstood the nature of Thomas' complaint. A big clue to his meaning appears in the very next paragraph:

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

The rights in the first ten amendments are specific and enumerated -- and are focused on preventing the government from overstepping the boundaries of its power.

Thomas isn't complaining about that. He's complaining about a "proliferation" of other "rights", ones focused on the presumed entitlement of individuals, ones which are always exercised at the expense of others.

The distinction is obvious in this paragraph:

He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”