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.”
Mr. Justice Thomas does not fit the LIEberal narrative, so he must be taken down!
NY Slimes is happy to oblige.
After all, aren’t all blacks supposed to be LIEberal Democrats? Or at least stay way in the background and pretend?
Prominent black conservatives must not be allowed to gain traction in the modern-day America lest they influence other blacks to turn on their LIEberal masters!
Can’t have that!
Nossiree Bob!
He definitely got “and” and “the” from one of Earl Warren’s opinions and he used verbs and nouns throughout his opinions just like Justices Burger and Marshal.
Attorneys who file appellate briefs pray all the time that the Judge or Justices will quote them verbatim. The whole purpose of filing a brief is to provide the Judge with what you hope to God are the very words they will use in their opinion.
Yet The Slimes ignores the robots appointed by Clinton and Obambi
Their votes are always predictable
He is still being lynched.
Agreed re Thomas’ opinions. He is short, to the point, and bases them on the law as is, not as he imagines he would like it to be.
There is absolutely no need to write 150 page opinions unless you are BS’ing and covering it up with a lot of words. The modern trend to long, tendentious opinions by the supreme court is a symptom of a Court at loose ends with the law.
Why? Because they’re bigots.
Makes sense to me. I'd get a kick out of others using my sermons. I've cribbed from the best. Everyone from Spurgeon to Truett to Graham.
But suppose a hypothetical...that I had gone an extra step and actually FILED my sermons with THEM for their review and approval. And then if they used some of it in their own! Wow. I'd throw a party.
FYI - Post 11 was the original courtesy ping to you.
Just like a lot of FReepers. ;-]
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.