20070618 Stacking the deck against Justice Thomas by Pillage Idiot

Stacking the deck against Justice Thomas by the Pillage Idiot

June 18, 2007

Attila at the Pillage Idiot has obviously spent considerable time and energy in penning an excellent review – of a review of "Supreme Discomfort, The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas" to Orlando Patterson.

Mr. Attila’s post is certainly well worth the time and I highly recommend it and want to thank Mr. Attila for taking the time to pull it all together so that others may benefit from his insights.

In a feeble attempt to add to Mr. Attila’s excellent commentary I call the readers attention that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas actually answered this book eloquently in a speech before the National Bar Association in Memphis, Tenn., on July 29^th, 1998.

{A note to Mr. Crablaw, he mentions Marvin Gaye's album, What's Going On?}

See my article on “Soundtrack,” “20070423 What Going On?”

And see the end of this article…

Supreme Court Justice Thomas said a number of poignant things, including:

I'd like to thank the members of the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association who have been so courageous and forthright and kind to invite me to join you this afternoon. As has become the custom, a wearisome one I admit, this invitation has not been without controversy. Although this is unfortunate, this controversy has added little value in the calculus of my decision to be here.

[…]

Unlike the unfortunate practice or custom in Washington and in much of the country, the court is a model of civility. It's a wonderful place. Though there have been many contentious issues to come before the Court during these initials years of my tenure, I have yet to hear the first unkind words exchanged among my colleagues. And quite frankly, I think that such civility is the sine qua non of conducting the affairs of the Court and the business of the country.

[…]

With respect to my following, or, more accurately, being led by other members of the Court, that is silly, but expected since I couldn't possibly think for myself. And what else could possibly be the explanation when I fail to follow the jurisprudential, ideological, and intellectual, if not anti- intellectual, prescription assigned to blacks? Since thinking beyond this prescription is presumptively beyond my abilities, obviously someone must be putting these strange ideas into my mind and my opinions. Though being underestimated has its advantages, the stench of racial inferiority still confounds my olfactory nerves.

[…]

Of course there is much criticism of the Court by this group or that, depending on the Court's decisions in various highly publicized cases. Some of the criticism is profoundly uninformed and unhelpful. And all too often, uncivil second-guessing is not encumbered by the constraints of facts, logic, or reasoned analysis. On the other hand, the constructive and often scholarly criticism is almost always helpful in thinking about or rethinking decisions.

[…]

I have found during my almost 20 years in Washington that the tendency to personalize differences has grown to be an accepted way of doing business. One need not do the hard work of dissecting an argument. One need only attack and thus discredit the person making the argument. Though the matter being debated is not effectively resolved, the debate is reduced to unilateral pronouncements and glib but quotable clichés.

[…]

The summer of 1971 was perhaps one of the most difficult of my life. It was clear to me that the road to destruction was paved with anger, resentment, and rage. But where were we to go? I would often spend hours in our small efficiency apartment in New Haven pondering this question and listening to Marvin Gaye's then new album, What's Going On? To say the least, it was a depressing summer.

What were we to do? What's going on?

[…]

Read the entire speech here: 19980729 Clarence Thomas Answers His Critics by Clarence Thomas

Meanwhile, Mr. Attila begins his piece by noting:

A book-review editor can elicit a positive or negative review of a book (and the subject of the book) simply by choosing a reviewer with known views.

You know all you need to know about the New York Times's feelings toward Justice Clarence Thomas (as if you didn't know it already) when you see that the Times Book Review assigned the review of "Supreme Discomfort, The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas" to Orlando Patterson. Patterson, a respected black intellectual, is a sociologist, not a lawyer. If the Times had had any interest in examining Justice Thomas's legal views, it would not have offered the review to a non-lawyer.

Why is that relevant? Justice Thomas has been a member of the Supreme Court for 15 years and, contrary to the ever-present sneers about his taking orders from Justice Scalia, he has developed a strong and individual jurisprudence over that time. You'd barely know this from reading Patterson's review.

Please read the rest of the article, “Stacking the deck against Justice Thomas” by the Pillage Idiot

_____

Marvin Gaye "What's Going On / What's Happening Brother"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KC7uhMY9s

####