Posted on 12/09/2002 11:54:33 AM PST by mhking
My brother and I had a spirited conversation recently about US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas' name has been floated around of late as a possible replacement for aging Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In our conversation, I was finally able to glean what others have taken years to ponder: Why does Clarence Thomas engender such venom from many blacks? How could a black man from a meager beginning in Pinpoint, Georgia, rise to become one of the most powerful men in the United States, yet earn the enmity of the majority of black Americans? The answer lies in Thomas' approach to the court and the cases that come before it. Clarence Thomas is a strict Constitutionalist. He recognizes his role is as interpreter of the United States Constitution, and in that role, must glean from the framers' words how they would address the issues and legalities of contemporary America. Thomas' decisions are made from a strict constitutional basis; he does not step back to view the decisions through the veil of black history, as his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall, did. And ultimately, that is where the majority of black America parts company with Justice Thomas. Many blacks want to be proud of another black man who has achieved such a loft perch. But no matter what they tell you, they would prefer a man in place who would have a soft spot for blacks in his decisions. Even my younger brother, who is politically as close to a fence sitter as they come, has that same desire in mind. "In all of his decisions, Clarence Thomas has shown that he's forgotten that he's black," my brother said. "No," I admonished him, "Thomas hasn't 'forgotten' anything. He's a strict constitutionalist. He is mature enough to remove himself from those decisions in terms of his 'blackness' - he makes them impassionately and impartially." In addition, though he's a powerful man, Thomas is a quiet man; a private man. It is difficult, at best, to see into his psyche. And since his detractors cannot see into the windows in his life, they've used that as further evidence that he's "sold his soul to the devil." In spite of those detractors, and simply because Thomas does make his decisions outside the politically correct racial envelope, Justice Thomas has become public enemy number one to the leftists in general, and to the so-called black leadership in particular. Attempts at marginalizing and vilifying him range from eye-rolling and snorts from the man on the street to public excoriation and denouncement from columnists across the nation. George Curry, editor of the now-departed Emerge magazine, published two different covers, three years apart, visually attacking Thomas with caricatures of the Justice with a handkerchief on his head, and as a lawn jockey, both playing on old stereotypes of those who would "sell out" their blackness to the highest bidder - in this case, white America. Curry is as guilty as all the rest who would pigeonhole Thomas simply because he doesn't share their views. USA Today columnist and former Pacifica Network radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux has publicly expressed her disdain in an even more venomous manner. "The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person," Malveaux said in a 1994 interview. Curry and Malveaux are not unique in their views of Thomas – but when confronted with the question of why they feel that way, many are at a loss for words beyond insisting that his decisions reflect an “anti-black” bias. My brother described it as akin to making the statement, “I got mine, now you get yours.” But is that truly what is being said by Justice Thomas? A strict constitutionalist has to step away from the political correctness that pervades partisan politics and make his jurisprudent decisions based explicitly upon the law of the land. Thomas feels that he not only has a responsibility to black America in that regard, but a responsibility to all of America. Any strict constitutionalist would. But rather than recognizing that fact, many would much rather vilify him. And there’s no better way to describe that attitude than as a crying shame.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
The nail on the head.
People have accused me of forgetting that I am black, and I respond to them by telling them "yes I have forgotten that I am black, because it makes no difference to me or to my behavior. When will YOU forget that I am black?"
That usually shuts them up.
There's not been a justice in the last 60 years I admire more, and that includes Scalia.
Where the black leadership is concerned, I think the issue comes more directly to power: Thomas' approach to the law, if widely adopted, would strike at the heart of their power, as they presently understand it.
The other criticism of Thomas, which you did not mention, is that a fair number of left-leaning and liberal legal commentators do not think Thomas particularly bright. Possibly because one couldn't be part of WEBD's 'talented tenth' if one held views such as those Thomas has?
I'm not sure I agree. The fact Judge Thomas is not a liberal rankles many.
That's a pretty heavy charge. There has been quite a bit of questioning of black people's intellectual abilities on these boards over the past few weeks.
But instead of flaming you, I'll ask one simple question: Can you present any empirial evidence that supports your claim that Justice Thomas "follows the lead" of anyone other than himself?
Birth of Tha SYNDICATE
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
Speaking as a Catholic myself, I have been impressed with how well Justice Thomas has demonstrated proper Catholic teaching on justice and law. Justice Scalia, though also a Catholic, does not seem as influenced by Church teachings in his own legal thought. I do not at all mean Thomas lets his Catholicism trump the Constitution. I mean Justice Thomas properly applies Catholic teaching within the framework of the Constitution.
The most interesting examples I have found are the cases where Thomas and Scalia disagree - sometimes by voting on opposite sides of an issue, sometimes by voting the same way, but offering differing opinions on their vote. I find myself almost always prefering the legal vision of Thomas in these cases, and I suspect this is largely because of the way Catholicism has shaped both of our thinking.
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.