Posted on 09/01/2015 10:33:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week The New York Times published a story with the sensational headline "Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice of Few Words, Some Not His Own." Some not his own? Was the Times accusing Thomas of plagiarism? It sure seemed like it was. Here's how the piece began:
Justice Clarence Thomas has not asked a question from the Supreme Court bench since 2006. His majority opinions tend to be brisk, efficient and dutiful.
Now, studies using linguistic software have discovered another Thomas trait: Those opinions contain language from briefs submitted to the court at unusually high rates.
The piece goes on to describe Thomas' opinions as "rely[ing] heavily on the words of others" and employing "borrowed language." In fact, the Times spends a full 14 paragraphs painting Thomas as a sort of lone incompetent (or worse) unable or unwilling to write his own opinions without outside help.
But then we reach paragraph 15, which reads as follows:
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.
In other words, if you stick around long enough to read the fine print, you discover that the Times has been misleading you all along. Thomas has done nothing unusual. His writing conforms to standard practices among the justices.
Needless to say, this deceptive story has come in for some well-deserved criticism. The most trenchant of which came from George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had this to say about the Times' misdeeds:
The implication is that Justice Thomas is not doing his job. Not only does he not ask questions, he doesn’t even think for himself.
For the New York Times audience, it's the kind of ideological catnip that is likely to make a lasting impression. No wonder it has been a main link on the Times homepage for most of the last day.
If you look at the data, though, they don't support the conclusion that Justice Thomas is an outlier....
Yes, Thomas has the highest shared language percentage. But it's bizarre to say that his numbers are "unusually high," that Thomas "relies heavily" on outside language or that "many" of his words are "not his own." All of the Justices share language from the briefs at roughly similar rates: about 7 to 11 words out of 100. And the difference between Thomas and Sotomayor is a rounding error. It's only 2.5 words out of 1,000. In a typical majority opinion, that's probably the difference between including a short parenthetical quote from a precedent and leaving it out.
Today, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan issued a response to the criticism leveled by Kerr and others. She did her best to defend the piece, but facts are facts, and Sullivan was ultimately forced to concede that "the overall impression it left may well have overstated the case." No kidding.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The New York Times has a long history of publishing misleading negative items about Justice Thomas. For example, early in Thomas' tenure on the Court, the Times famously described Justice Antonin Scalia as Thomas' "apparent mentor," a cheap shot designed to portray Thomas as an intellectual lightweight. Yet as we now know, Thomas has been the one influencing Scalia—an influence that Scala himself has repeatedly acknowledged. Yet the demonstrably false notion of Thomas as Scalia's "sidekick" continues to persist in many quarters of the American left.
I realize that Clarence Thomas' legal views are unpopular among many of the reporters and editors who work at The New York Times. But their bias against him is no excuse for this sort of specious journalism.
Let that be a lesson to any other uppity negroes that think about leaving the Democrat plantation.
Always remember. The press isn’t biased toward the Democrats, they *are* the Democrats.
They will NEVER forgive him for not being an “authentic black person”.
Why don’t they just call him Clarence Tom? It would be more truthful. (Not that that paper would know truth if it hit them over the head with a 2x4.)
Why is the NYT so racist? Why is the NYT waging a war on black people. Our side needs to start slinging the mud back.
The most dangerous people in the view of the MSM are conservative blacks.
The most dangerous people to the left are woman and minorities that can think for themselves.
Funny this should come up now. It was just released that David Brock sent an email on impeaching Thomas to Sidney Blumenthal who forwarded it to Clinton. This must be a topic on listserv (or whatever replaced it.)
IN fact, I believe I read that Thomas was the justice most likely to issue separate, even if concurring, opinions.
To them, he’s a runaway slave.
Has anyone, anywhere actually heard Justice Thomas open his mouth to ask a question during any court room arguments at all?
That’ll be big news if it happens.
They just won’t leave this poor man alone. What a sin.
At that very moment, I, a previously straight ticket voting Democrat, vowed to never again vote for any Democrat for any reason.
I have kept that vow.
The message is quite clear. If a black person is Conservative, it is OK to call him or her a stupid n-—. In fact, it is encouraged.
He hasn't for years. He's on record as considering oral arguments to be nothing but showboating on the part of both the attorneys and justices. The case is decided on the briefs, not oral arguments (for those cases that aren't decided based on liberal "feelings).
God bless you Eddie! A little more Justice Clarence Thomas .... a true 'Profile in Courage'
1) Second African American to serve on the United States Supreme Court.
2) Overcame being fatherless at 2, homeless at 7, and raised by his Grandparents.
3) He was the only black person attending his high school in Savannah and was an honor student.
4) He was the first black person to attend St. John Vianney’s Minor Seminary and considered being a Catholic priest.
5) Justice Thomas graduated cum laude in English Literature from The College of Holly Cross even though he grew up speaking the Gullah language as a child.
6) Justice Thomas was accepted into Yale Law School and received his J.D. degree in 1974.
7) Justice Thomas was appointed Chairman of the US Equal Opportunity Commission in 1982.
8) In 1989, Thomas was nominated to a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. which was vacated by Robert Bork.
9) He wrote his autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son, in 2007, which became a bestseller.
10) As a judge, he is viewed as an originalist, whose jurisprudence views the constitutional role of the Court as being the interpretation of law, rather than the making of law.
In the profession in which I was employed for 30+ years, I regularly rubbed shoulders with professional men from other states up and down the east coast.
I was amazed to see and realize that some of the men from Delaware were by far, more racially hostile to blacks that even ones I met from much farther south. For that reason, along with hearing for myself some of Joe Biden’s racial slurs, I am certain that Biden is a much more racist individual than most people would ever imagine.
In fact, in the campaign speech in which he bellered, “The Republicans want to put y’all (blacks) back in chains!” I never did regard that statement as even a semi-sincere cautionary note to respected, appreciated black people. I’ve always thought it was a smartass, demeaning slur containing the buried, concealed truth that to Biden, the whole idea of slavery was a joke, and something to be laughed off and made the butt of his snide political statements intended to scare and confine the audience into cowering on the democRAT plantation for another century.
Not since 2006, according to the article.
Maybe, just maybe Justice Thomas is actually LISTENING, so he does not need to ask questions.
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.