As is required with almost all media reports, one has to read between the lines. In this article, there is actually some very significant information. In effect, the constitutional expert, who just happened to clerk for a very liberal judge on the 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (most liberal district) and then at the USSC for RUTH BADER GINSBERG (most liberal Justice) before becoming a professor at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (most liberal law school, which is really saying something) saying that:
1. Thomas' actions were "once in a decade";
2. Inconsistent with Court custom since they usually don't question another Justice's denial out of their own circuit; and
3. Only cases that were of an "extraordinary nature got this type of treatment.
He then asserts this weird analysis about Thomas accepting the case so it could be killed before the entire conference?!? Huh? Why not just deny it and be done with it. There is no reason to kill it in conference... this guy is really grasping at straws to explain the Court's behavior. But, on the other hand, if one DID see this as "a case of extraordinary nature", then these actions would be understandable. But that would mean that AFRO magazine would have to acknowledge that this isn't as screwball as the media wants us to believe.
This is a good sign, IMO.
The passage you quote stood out for me, too, but for another reason.
What is the purpose of "Rule 22," or any rule for that matter, if the custom is to ignore it? And why ignore the rule just out of "respect" for another Justice, rather than on the merits of the case?
-PJ