Nadir is outraged that Bush has over-stepped his constitutional authority as President on numerous occassions. I share that view. But what about the Supreme Court also doing so? A new book about Clarence Thomas praises Thomas as an adherant to the US Constitution.
Before I knew anything about Thomas, I was a liberal/leftist, and despised him and considered hime to be a self-hating, anti-black idiot. As my leftist status was disintegrating, I remember noticing that CSPAN was about to broadcast a speach by Thomas, at some public funciton. Surely my leftist position on Thomas could not be wrong! Surely Thomas would expose himself to be an intellectual lightweight. Boy, was I wrong. They guy was intelligent, humorous, knowlegable, captivating... everything the opposite of what I certainly "knew". A fully functioning intellectual, and a heavy weight at that. This became one of many events along my path to transformation from Leftist to Reformed Leftist: subjecting what I "knew" to open-minded scrutiny.
Among the many charges leveled against Thomas' intelligence is that in hearing cases, he rarely asks the attending attorneys any questions, and his legal writings are very brief. I found that his supporter's charactorization of this is accurate: the other SC jurors use the question periods and their writings to impress the world, whereas Thomas correctly regards his job as simple -- compare the appealed law and ruling to the current US constitution, and ask a simple question: does the US Constitution permit it?
I think that Bush made a mistake by not moving this guy to Chief Justice.
Thomas' interpretations of Constitutional law stem from his constructionist mindset. He is stuck in the 18th century.
ReplyDeleteI oppose some of his rulings, namely his permission to display religious symbols on state property. Other than that, I think his rulings reflect the best of 18th century legal interpretation of the US constitution, including the belief by Thomas that even the constituion even without the pre-Civil War ammendments did not permit slavery or racial descrimination, that the "3/5ths compromise" contradicted other portions of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteNadir, please provide support that Thomas holds any legal views indicative of a repressive 18th century thinker.