Can one engage in original thought while snoring?
Posted on 08/28/2015 6:56:25 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
On Friday, The New York Times published an article clearly aimed at portraying conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas as an unoriginal thinker, if not an outright plagiarist. But a closer look at the statistics cited in the piece, entitled “Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice of Few Words, Some Not His Own,” indicates that The Times grossly overstated its case.
In the article, Times reporter Adam Liptak cites three studies that used linguistic software to measure what percentage of justices’ opinions use words cribbed from briefs submitted to the court.
According to Liptak, Thomas used words from those briefs at an “unusually high” rate compared to other justice. The black justice’s opinions also “appear to rely heavily on the words of others,” the reporter wrote.
The framing of the piece fits a common accusation leveled against Thomas, who began serving on the highest court in 1991. His critics, mostly liberals, claim that Thomas merely follows the lead of other conservative justices, such as Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.
Liptak points to Thomas’ well-known reputation for rarely asking questions during oral arguments. Thomas has said he sees little value in oral arguments and is introverted by nature. His critics spin his silence as evidence that he is not as bright as his colleagues.
But while the studies Liptak cites do show that Thomas’ opinions utilize a higher percentage of words from court briefs than do other justices, the gap is minuscule.
Citing a study from Adam Feldman, an attorney and doctoral student in political science at the University of Southern California, Liptak writes:
Over the years, the average rate of nearly identical language between a party’s brief and the majority opinion was 9.6 percent. Justice Thomas’s rate was 11.3 percent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s was 11 percent, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 10.5 percent. All three sometimes produce institutional prose.
That means that Thomas relied on words from court briefs at about the same rate as Ginsburg and Sotomayor, two of the Court’s most liberal justices.
Liptak relied on two other studies, both of which analyzed what percentage of opinions released during the 2002, 2003, and 2004 court sessions overlapped with text from amicus briefs.
Again, Thomas had the highest overlap rate — 4.4 percent. But Ginsberg followed closely at a 3.5 percent overlap rate. Because of the time period used in the study, current justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were not included in the analysis.
The Times piece was roundly criticized Friday for a variety of reasons. Some argued that Liptak offered an overblown interpretation of the underlying studies. Others claimed it was overt racism to imply that the court’s only black justice plagiarizes more than others on the bench.
Kevin Drum, a blogger at the liberal website, Mother Jones, cast doubt on Liptak’s methodology.
“I dunno. Does that look ‘unusually high’ to you?” Drum asked of the stats Liptak cites. “It looks to me like it’s about the same as Sotomayor, and only a bit higher than Ginsburg, Alito and Roberts.”
Orin Kerr, a law professor and blogger at The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy, dug into the studies Liptak used and came to the same conclusion.
“I don’t see how these studies support the Times’s presentation of Justice Thomas as an outlier,” Kerr wrote. “Even if these small differences are indicators of something, I’m not sure what that thing is.”
At Mediaite, Alex Griswold (a former Daily Caller reporter) leveled a stronger accusation against The Times piece.
“Unfortunately, the Times attack plays into the longstanding and disgusting liberal meme that Justice Thomas is just some ‘puppet’ of the other conservative justices…and conservatives in general,” Griswold wrote.
“It’s hard to ignore the underlying racial double standard; that the only black justice is the one who’s somehow incapable of independent thought, but not his white ideological allies on the Court.”
As a seminal thinker Thomas is leading the court in a consistently constitutional direction especially regarding the first, second and fourth amendments. His intellect is superior to each of the sitting liberal judges and ranks as high as any who have ever served.
Leftists are right to worry about Thomas. He is one of the most important intellects and constitutional scholars on the court.
“All the news that fits our agenda,” courtesy, the New York Slime.
Well, after all we know that a certain spoiled rich kid from Honolulu who grew up in gated country club surroundings with his white mother and her very well to do parents represents the black experience far more than Clarence Thomas (who was raised in very simple surroundings in Atlanta by his grandfather) (sarc big time).
Use the linguistic hardware to compare the “original” taking points between the White Hut, the NYT and the alphabet networks.
Taking = talking
Can one engage in original thought while snoring?
The same software shows Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father was not written by Obama, but by Bill Ayers.
Huh? Several of the briefs I’ve read contain quotes from previous opinions.. When they did this new study, was anything directly quoted removed from the recent opinions, as that isn’t plagiarism, that’s quoting from source material.
You got a problem with that?
:}
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Maybe CT has a better memory and relies on the language of previous court briefs to avoid confusion.
removed by moderator
The NYT can run drivel like this as few of their readers actually read court opinions. If they did they would know Thomas for his solid contribution to the history of the court .
“All the news that fits our agenda,” courtesy, the New York Slime. Or: We only print the “news” that fits our agenda.
I can’t remember if it was Levin or Limbaugh who said Thomas had the best written opinions. I want to say it was Levin. He said they invariably were the most principled and also the pithiest — getting the point across with the fewest words. He said his opinions were like primers on the correct conservative way of looking at things. So it’s no wonder he’s in the libtards’ crosshairs. That and the fact that he blows up all their moronic racial narratives.
How about turning that methodology on Hillary’s “speeches”?
Supreme Court Justices don’t right their own decisions— that is what clerks are for anyway— sad the New York Times would try to smear a supreme court justice like that..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.