When he began raising Mark -- Thomas has one adult son from a previous marriage -- he altered his Supreme Court schedule. He sent Mark to private schools, gave him extra homework to improve his math and reading, taught him to dribble with his left hand. And Mark responded. He excelled in school, became a Harry Potter fan and took up golf, and as a teenager he is comfortable around some of the most brilliant legal minds in the country.And so it goes. The book is based on interviews from family and others, but not Thomas himself, who declined to talk to the authors. So we must endure grudging commentary like that from the nephew or this, from Thomas's sister:
Mark's father was another story. Thomas had tried desperately to reach him, without success. Though Martin was good with his hands and worked for a time repairing piers at a marina near Pin Point, he injured himself and lost that job. And because he was illiterate, according to his attorney, he had little means of supporting himself. He was on probation and out of work when his luck turned worse....
When the drug bust went down, Thomas was so disappointed that he offered no legal advice, no pep talk, nothing. Thomas's mother said he had tried in vain to help his nephew many times. " 'Mark, please, you got them pretty little kids. Please,' " she recalled her son pleading. But Thomas couldn't get through, and now he really was through.
This time, Uncle Clarence just kept his distance. And his sister, Emma Mae Martin, didn't say a word, "just left it alone," as she put it. She didn't even ask her well-connected brother for help. "Nope, nope, no, no," she said emphatically, signaling the strain in their relationship. "He didn't want to get involved anyway," she added....
Thomas is not popular among the other inmates, the nephew [said in an interview]...
"They always asking, 'Why he ain't got you out of this stuff?'"
Emma Mae Martin, who was once publicly singled out by her brother as an example of the debilitating effects of welfare dependency, is a high school dropout who later earned her diploma in night school as an adult. She and her brother don't talk politics or law or philosophy. Their conversations tend to be about, "well, not much really," Martin said. "Find out how I'm doing, what I'm up to, that's about it."And here's Thomas's mother:
She lives her life and lets him be. "He's supposed to be a judge," she said, "but you can't judge anybody unless you judge yourself. I've never judged anybody, but people judge me all the time."
Her favorite son was Myers Thomas, Clarence's younger brother, who died in 2000 of a heart attack suffered during a morning jog. "Myers was the kindest-hearted one," she said. He called often, came to visit when she was lonely, took her for rides. "I had more dealing with Myers," she explained. "Me and Myers were more really open and close together."I'm sure there is more in the book than this sort of thing, which is dispiriting and, it seems, unfair.
Here's Yale lawprof Kenji Yoshino reviewing the book:
We're introduced to the many Thomases we have never seen: the RV-driving Thomas, the Ayn Rand-loving Thomas, the Catholic Thomas and others.Can you "solve" a mystery by "suggesting" something? I don't think so, even if a poet's purported wisdom is tossed in. I'm not buying the theory that such an extraordinary man is "silenced" by "scripts" that are imposed on black people. The man has overcome so much in his life. It's insulting to portray him as flummoxed by "scripts," "stories," and "narratives." Yoshino is delivering a strong dose of his own theories here, and it will help you understand what he's saying here if you know what he wrote in his book "Covering."
The book's main flaw is its failure to give us more of one particular Thomas: Justice Thomas. For a biography of a jurist, Supreme Discomfort is surprisingly short on Thomas's legal decisions and philosophy....
Merida and Fletcher also fail to grapple adequately with the justice's jurisprudential methodology....
It is hard, though, to quarrel too much with a book that solves the great Thomas mystery: his legendary silence. One conventional explanation is that Thomas is still smarting from the Anita Hill scandal that occupied his confirmation hearing, an explanation that seems less plausible with every passing year. Merida and Fletcher explain his courtroom demeanor by suggesting that silence is the closest Thomas can come to opting out of the scripts that eddy around him. "If you can't be free," the poet Rita Dove writes, "be a mystery." It is a serious indictment of race relations in this country that, in 2007, the nation's most powerful African Americans are still not permitted to be individuals.
Now, "Covering" is a terrific memoir. Thinking about it, I realize that what I want to read about Clarence Thomas is his own memoir. He has things to say, and some of them he has already told us.
Here's the best explanation I've read of why he keeps silent on the bench:
Since Justice Thomas joined the bench in 1991, he has offered limited comments about his reticence, leaving it to friends and former law clerks to defend his practice. They dismissed any suggestions that his relative silence reflected any lack of intellectual confidence. But during an informal chat with high school students the day after the court's ruling in Bush v. Gore, the justice offered his most extensive explanation.Why doesn't that "solve" the "mystery"?
He said his fellow justices are so talkative that if he just waits, someone will ask the questions he might have asked. ''Unless I want an answer I don't ask things,'' he said. ''I don't ask for entertainment, I don't ask to give people a hard time.''
Then he offered a reason no one had ever suggested. He said his poor upbringing in Georgia had an effect on his inclination not to ask questions. When he was 16, he said, and the only black student in his seminary class, he was used to speaking in a low country dialect known as Gullah. ''People praise it now,'' he said. ''But they used to make fun of us back then.''
As a result, he said, he ''just started developing the habit of listening.''
Maybe everyone is picking the solution that works best with what they already want to say about Thomas or -- as with Yoshino -- what they've already said generally about how they think the world works.
Posts
56 comments:
Very interesting post. "Ayn Rand lover got my attention."
Vicki Hearne suggested the use of astrology in analyzing public figures, when confronted with the theories of experts who have lost touch with life, as a literary strategy. Her (and Douglas Adams's) praise of the science here .
The world already has too many talkers and not enough listeners. That might be worth thinking about before trying to dissect the mind of Justice Thomas, or especially looking to the "science" of astrology for explanation.
Prof. Althouse said:
"Here's the best explanation I've read of why he keeps silent on the bench. . .
Maybe everyone is picking the solution that works best with what they already want to say about Thomas or -- as with Yoshino -- what they've already said generally about how they think the world works."
What does Prof. Althoue's view of what is the best explanation say about what she already wants to say about Thomas or how she thinks the world generally works? Perhaps, because she quotes Thomas' own words she believes we should take people at their own word when explaining themselves. (Or at least take Judges/Justices at their word when describing themselves or we should take Thomas at his word when describing himself.)
Yeah, "Ayn Rand loving" got my attention too. That alone should disqualify him for the Supreme Court. Can you imagine the uproar if a book out on Ginsburg that described her as "Jean Paul Satre loving". And that's not even a fair comparison, because even though he was a Marxist, at least he could write decent prose, wasn't completely insane and a wasn't a completely repulsive human being.
the Ayn Rand-loving Thomas, the Catholic Thomas
At least he is intellectually complex. Randian thought and Roman Catholic thought are difficult to reconcile. I suppose he is just taking from each what he likes, which is what most people do.
Ann wrote:
Why doesn't that "solve" the "mystery"?
Maybe everyone is picking the solution that works best with what they already want to say about Thomas or -- as with Yoshino -- what they've already said generally about how they think the world works.
This applies to Thomas too. Why should we believe that he is being honest about the reasons for his silence? Why assume that Thomas didn't tailor his answer to the "mystery of his silence" to suit his own agenda?
Incidentally, it's a mistake to equate a nontalker to a listener. I don't see any good evidence that Thomas is a listener. And I find it truly amazing that the questions that Thomas claims he would ask are always anticipated by other Justices. This suggests to me that Thomas isn't particularly curious. Not surprising then that Thomas is one of Dubya's favorite justices.
He said his fellow justices are so talkative that if he just waits, someone will ask the questions he might have asked. ''Unless I want an answer I don't ask things,'' he said. ''I don't ask for entertainment, I don't ask to give people a hard time.''
Heh, I would just add two things. One, oral arguments may be dramatic and exciting in the eyes of the media and public at large but they are rarely (if ever) what decides a case at the level of the Supreme Court. The Court could dispense with them altogether and decide cases based on the briefs submitted by the parties (which is probably closer to what actually happens) and get about the same result but it probably wouldn’t be as interesting to the public.
The other point is Thomas is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Short of having John Roberts’ job, that’s the highest point anyone can achieve in the legal profession. IMO some people are continuing to spin the “he doesn’t talk to the media because he’s still bitter about the Anita Hill accusations” because it’s easier for them then having to accept that he’s not talking to them (as much as they’d like) because unlike an elected official or member of an advocacy group, he doesn’t need to.
When he was 16, he said, and the only black student in his seminary class, he was used to speaking in a low country dialect known as Gullah.
Well he's creating a myth about himself here. Gullah is not a dialect, it is a recognized as a separate language. And while Gullah might have been prevalent in Pin Point when he was a child, he left there when he was six. His claims that he would be permitted to enter an all-white (catholic?) high school (and do well there) if he only spoke Gullah, or that his grandfather (a successful black businessman in Savannah) would allow him to continue to speak Gullah once he moved to Savannah, is patently absurd.
I've also heard Justice Thomas say that he does not often ask questions because of the obvious reasons -- the arguments should be fully stated in the briefs and because he prefers to give the attorneys a full opportunity to present their arguments without being interrupted ten seconds into it. Too many judges' and justices' questions are merely "gotcha" questions anyway.
At least he is intellectually complex. Randian thought and Roman Catholic thought are difficult to reconcile.
Actually, if you can reconcile the two (Rand despises altruism, Catholicism demands it), it demonstrates you are extremely intellectually shallow.
Actually, if you can reconcile the two (Rand despises altruism, Catholicism demands it), it demonstrates you are extremely intellectually shallow.
With God, all things are possible. That said, I have no earthly idea how to reconcile the two philosophies. (Though I would note that one can "love" an author or philosopher without agreeing with every last view of that author or philosopher.)
I think that Bender has a good point. Oral arguments are really mostly about drama, making the appeals process interesting. And I think that some of the Justices engage in them because they are fun, Bender's "gotcha". I see J. Scalia esp. enjoying this, as I am sure I would, if I were ever an appeals judge.
But I can definately see J. Thomas seeing them more as a bother, a time waster, etc. They have to have oral arguments because that is how it has been done for a long time. Not that they really make much of a difference, but rather, just that is the way things are done.
Both sides are heavily invested in them. The appeals court judges and justices often like them because they can verbally joust with the best minds in the legal field - and control the turf while doing so. And many of the lawyers like it, as they get to show off. Besides, it has spawned another legal specialty - the appeals attorney.
I guess I am one of the few lawyers out there for whom Thomas is my favorite Justice, by far. He doesn't tend to split all the hairs that so many legal scholars love. But when he writes, he often writes with passion.
Yes, he likes bright lines. But so do I, and so do most non-lawyers. The O'Connor 17 factor balancing tests really just let the judicial branch do whatever they really want to, with little guidance and control. That is fine for them, because they are the ones making the rules. Not so good for the rest of us who have to guess at what the rules are going to be tomorrow or the next day.
In listening to S. Ct. arguments, I long ago realized if in Thomas' shoes, I'd also be silent. Some on the bench ask short questions, and some like to drag the counselor all over the courtroom. With that environment, there is room for a justice who reads the briefs and simply listens to the arguments.
Also, in listening to state S. Ct. justices discuss their role in answering questions, they've often said they are trying to assist the lawyers in refining/improving their argument. I disagree. I would ask, why is that my job? Make your case. I will rule.
As for a book about Justice Thomas' life, inconsistencies, and imperfect relationships, don't count me as surprised that he is the target and not say, Ginsburg.
I thought it was widely understood why Thomas doesn't usually ask questions on the bench - I mean, it's in Wikpedia, for goodness' sakes, and Thomas said so himself on CSPAN several ears ago, this isn't obscure stuff - but I guess not. And yes, it does answer the riticisms, as does the lesser-observed point that historically, it is Justice Thomas' colleagues who are abberational in being active questioners, not Justice Thomas in being an active listener.
From the WaPo:
"Ever since Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall in 1991, many have struggled to reconcile who he is today with where he began -- as the Jim Crow-era child of deprivation in Pin Point, a boy whose family insulated its shack with newspapers and shared an outhouse with neighbors."
This is a telling statement. By "many" the author means liberals - and what is it they're trying to reconcile? Implicitly: "how could a southern black who grew up in segregation and poverty possibly be a liberal?" The question is just another take on that insulting liberal trope: "how dare you, a black man, be a conservative?"
Cyrus Pinkerton said...
"This applies to Thomas too. Why should we believe that he is being honest about the reasons for his silence?"
Because there's no motivation for him to lie would be the place to start.
"I don't see any good evidence that Thomas is a listener."
I appreciate you attending all the Supreme Court's oral arguments for the last fifteen years just to be able to bring us that little nugget of truth - since procedings aren't televised, there would be no possible way for you to make such an assessment other than physical presence in the courtroom.
Of course, the situation is not symmetrical, because to prove the converse, one need only listen to recordings of oral arguments where Thomas does ask questions, the content of which suggests very much that he's been paying attention.
As others have already said, each case the court hears has already had a flood of written material accompanying it. There's the opinion(s) of the court(s) below (quite possibly three of them: the district court, the panel of the court of appeals, and in unusual cases, an en banc opinion from the court of appeals), the petition for cert, the briefs on the merits, and often several amicus briefs. While oral argument can change minds and votes, and while they're certainly useful, I suspect it's very rare for something not adequately apparent from the briefs to emerge - a point underlined by how rare it is to see a citation to the argument transcript in the court's opinion.
"how could a southern black who grew up in segregation and poverty possibly be a liberal[sic, I assume you mean conservative]?" The question is just another take on that insulting liberal trope: "how dare you, a black man, be a conservative?"
This is a very good question, and not at all just a "liberal trope" as you put it. It is indeed baffling how a man could grow up in an extremely conservative society (and don't feed me that line of bullshit that Georgia was dominated by Democrats) and experience first hand the effects of conservative policies yet come away convinced that those policies are the ones that we would be better off returning to--that all the social, economic and legal policies of the last 70 years were somehow a huge mistake. That his hometown would be better off if it never got paved roads, electricity, a sewer system, integrated schools. Its residents and he would be better off if the federal government never interfered with Georgia's ability to decide who had the right to vote or if the police would be prosecuted for beating a young black man to death on the steps of the courthouse for petty crimes (one of the first uses of federal civil rights laws--and that was only a couple thousand dollar fine back in the late forties). You really have to wonder how he can believe that considering his background.
Because there's no motivation for him to lie would be the place to start.
There's plenty of motivation for him to lie. He wants to paint a picture of himself as a self-made man who never benefited from affirmative action, which he despises. Besides, some of his stories are obviously bullshit. The poor black kid who didn't speak up because he spoke Gullah is unadulterated bullshit. He would have never got into that school if he only spoke Gullah or even had a heavy Gullah accent. His grandfather would have insisted he learn to speak English even if Gullah was predominate in Pin Point when young Clarence moved from Pin Point to Savannah.
The entire premise of the Washington Post's article is ridiculous. What about David Souter's nephews and cousins? You don't think there's some drug-addled twit somehow related to Ruth Ginsburg?
It is totally patronizing to Thomas to report about how he relates to his family, about his dialect. The only reason we see these articles is because Thomas is black and conservative, which means that he's like an anthrpological oddity to be dissected and observed every so often by curious left-liberals via their house organs.
Freder Frederson said...
There's plenty of motivation for him to lie.
There's none at all. Freder, Clarence Thomas doesn't care what you think about him. He doesn't care what the New York Times thinks of him. This is a man who has nothing to prove to anyone, and even less interest in doing so.
Freder Frederson said...
"It is indeed baffling how a man could grow up in an extremely conservative society ... and experience first hand the effects of conservative policies yet come away convinced that those policies are the ones that we would be better off returning to[.]"
Perhaps for the obvious reasons that he, unlike you, grasps that those are not the policies conservatives believe in. As we all know, conservatives are opposed to "paved roads, electricity, a sewer system, [and] integrated schools," right? Most conservatives are opposed to black people voting and would repeal the civil rights act the first chance we get... You know, apart from the last six years. In its baldest form, your premise is this: conservatives are racists, so how can a black man be a conservative? Freder, if you genuinely think any of that reflects conservative views, you have once again written yourself off as the most collossal pillock posting here.
Simon wrote:
...it is Justice Thomas' colleagues who are abberational in being active questioners, not Justice Thomas in being an active listener.
I'm sorry, Simon, but you mistake silence for "active" listening. I can't claim he doesn't listen, nor can I assert that he does. The point is that neither you nor I know; evidence that he's "actively" listening is limited to instances in which he is involved in the discussion, and those instances are rare. Your claim that he is "an active listener" is a matter of faith, not fact.
Because there's no motivation for [Thomas] to lie would be the place to start.
This is extremely naive. Unless you have evidence that Thomas doesn't care a bit about public opinion, then surely he will act to shape public opinion. It's not simply a matter of lying either; it's quite easy to mislead by presenting a small bit of information, accurate or not, and withholding the rest.
I appreciate you attending all the Supreme Court's oral arguments for the last fifteen years just to be able to bring us that little nugget of truth
This is just plain dumb. I said that "I see no evidence." You've twisted that, somehow, into "I have all the evidence." Simon, if you have relevant evidence, present it; if you don't, admit it and move on. But as it now stands, I have no evidence that indicates that Thomas is a "listener" (i.e., in context, someone who is a particularly keen listener).
Cyrus -- What happens that is useful at the Supreme Court level in Oral Argument that changes anything? Are the facts of the case discussed? (Trick question, so be careful.) What percentage of a Supreme Court case consists of oral argument compared to what is written in briefs? Just a ballpark answer...
I'm counting on you to get right answers here, because you have styled yourself as an expert in these matters.
Simon wrote:
Clarence Thomas doesn't care what you think about him. He doesn't care what the New York Times thinks of him.
Simon, thanks for sharing your opinion of Clarence Thomas, but can you prove either of your two statements? If not, how can you be certain that Thomas wouldn't lie about his past?
Simon, I'm not trying to shake your faith in Clarence Thomas. But as a matter of logic, for someone who has serious doubts about accepting self-serving statements at face value, can you tell me how you know these things you assert about Clarence Thomas to be true? For example, HOW do you know Thomas doesn't care about public opinion?
Cyrus: how do you know that there is actually a person named Clarence Thomas who sits on a thing called The Supreme Court, which may or may not, in fact, truly exist?
seven machos,
I guess you aren't reading carefully. I haven't made any assertions about the importance of oral argument. In fact, I haven't mentioned a word about the significance of oral argument in USSC cases, nor have I claimed to be an expert on USSC matters. You're confused. I suggest you reread the comments and redirect your questions to the appropriate person.
Thank you.
Perhaps for the obvious reasons that he, unlike you, grasps that those are not the policies conservatives believe in.
But that is the point. While they may not be the policies he believes in, they are the consequences of the policies he believes in.
He, like me, (and you btw--living in Indiana and apparently not born with a silver spoon in your mouth, since you apparently can't afford to go to law school--but of course you could always just go to IU) should grasp that while conservatives are not "against" all the things I listed, without the liberal policies (and yes, even the liberal policies of Republicans) of the last seventy years, the people of Pin Point, Georgia would probably still not have electricity, phones, or sewers. They would still probably be disenfranchised and oppressed.
There's none at all. Freder, Clarence Thomas doesn't care what you think about him. He doesn't care what the New York Times thinks of him. This is a man who has nothing to prove to anyone, and even less interest in doing so.
Well, he may not care what I think about him, but he most certainly cares about what someone thinks about him. Because he obviously made up that bullshit story about him being afraid to speak up in high school because he spoke Gullah. You haven't addressed that obvious lie that he tells about his childhood. Why would he fabricate such a ridiculous story if he doesn't care what people think about him?
Frederson feels it is baffling for a man (as in "a black man") to believe:
"that all the social, economic and legal policies of the last 70 years were somehow a huge mistake"
And in fact that would be rather baffling if that's what Thomas, or any black conservative, actually believed.
But to reduce complex feelings about affirmative action or other policies down to such a simplistically wrong summation is kind of, I dunno... wrong?
But then again Frederson, expert seller of hay for constructions of straw, is no doubt an expert on how black conservatives build their intellectual houses.
Freder:
From the Wiki cite on "gullah":
"Far from being near extinction, Gullah culture has proven to be particularly resilient. Gullah traditions are still strong in urban areas of the Low Country, like Charleston and Savannah. But the old ways have persisted even among Gullahs who have left the low country and moved far away. Many Gullahs migrated to New York starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and these urban migrants have not lost their identity. Gullahs have their own neighborhood churches in Harlem, Brooklyn, and Queens, and typically send their children back to rural communities in South Carolina and Georgia during the summer months to be reared by grandparents, uncles and aunts. Gullah people living in New York also frequently return to the low country to retire. Second- and third-generation Gullahs from New York often maintain many of their traditional customs and sometimes still speak the Gullah language."
Justice Thomas' story is entirely plausible.
Justice Thomas' story is entirely plausible.
Its not plausible at all. Gullahs were (and are) considered uneducated and working class in Savannah and coastal Georgia. If Thomas was going to make it in the white man's world, he would have had to have concealed every vestige of his Gullah accent and language to get admitted as the only black child in his private catholic high school. His grandfather, as a successful black businessman, simply could not have conducted business in Savannah speaking Gullah. He would have insisted Clarence speak English, not Gullah.
Have you ever heard Gullah spoken? Have you ever been to coastal Georgia or South Carolina outside the tourist towns or resorts? Even today, the stratification of society is amazing. Unless you spend time in that part of the country and have at least a little understanding of the society, Wikipedia is a really poor substitute for first hand experience.
Why is it important for leftists like Fred to demonstrate that Clarence Thomas is lying!!! about some obscure language issue or once told a dirty joke!!! when it is really his policy choices that they disagree with?
Why is it important for leftists like Fred to demonstrate that Clarence Thomas is lying!!! about some obscure language issue or once told a dirty joke!!! when it is really his policy choices that they disagree with?
Well because Ann posited that Thomas' story about his experience in high school and his unfamiliarity with the English language is dispositive on why he rarely speaks from the bench. Not only is this story patently ridiculous, but even if it were true, it doesn't even adequately explain why, forty-three years later, now that he has mastered the King's English, that he doesn't ask more questions.
Freder,
First hand experience is, indeed, powerful. That's why I find Justice Thomas one helluva lot more credible about growing up in Georgia than you.
Of course, Thomas has an incentive to present himself in a positive light, and of course, we don't know if he's actively listening when he mostly keeps quiet during oral argument. His explanation is just one of a number of hypotheses to test.
He said his fellow justices are so talkative that if he just waits, someone will ask the questions he might have asked. ''Unless I want an answer I don't ask things,'' he said. ''I don't ask for entertainment, I don't ask to give people a hard time.''
Trying to put myself in his shoes ... During his confirmation hearings and during all of them since he has heard Senators spend much of their time extravagently overpraising the nominee or unfairly cutting him down, rarely asking for enlightenment but instead making self-serving speeches (often, like Jeopardy, phrased in the form of a question), speeches that to an observer are often embarrassing. Check the Althouse blogging of the Roberts and Alito hearings.
He sounds like he's saying, "I do not want to act like the members of the Judiciary Committee."
I had never heard that he was raising his nephew's son. I really admire that; sounds like he's done a good job of it too.
That's why I find Justice Thomas one helluva lot more credible about growing up in Georgia than you.
Well, anyone who spent time in coastal Georgia would immediately recognize the inconsistencies in his story. Gullah (or Geechee) is not a "dialect" as Thomas indicated in his little anecdote. It is a distinct language. You or I would not be able to understand a conversation between Gullah speakers although we might be able to snatch a phrase or two here or there (it is kind of like a French speaker trying to understand Italian). Almost all (if not all non-academic) Gullah speakers are black and live or lived in isolated communities. They were descended directly from slaves who were brought over from certain parts of west Africa specifically for their familiarity with rice cultivation and resistance to tropical diseases. If they spoke Gullah exclusively (which would have been rare for someone living as close to Savannah as Thomas did--by the fifties that would have been limited to the sea islands or marsh communities), that would have certainly ended as soon as he moved in with his grandfather (at the age of six). To believe that the highly socially conscious and stratified Savannah society (that even today isn't too hot on the idea of integration) would allow a child who had even the hint of a gullah accent (let alone still used the "gullah dialect") be the first to break the color barrier at a private school is just too silly to credit. They would have demanded a well-spoken Negro, not some low-class gullah crab picker.
I've only had the chance to watch a case argued before the court once, but when I did, Thomas's silence didn't seem that mysterious to me. He seemed fairly likely to just be bored - which he should be. If you don't have a taste for theatrics or lawyer-bullying, SCOTUS oral arguments are usually going to seem like a colossal waste of your time.
Orals make sense for a state supreme court or on circuit, when briefs are often going to be incomplete or unclear and questions may actually get you something. But hardly ever will an issue make it past cert without every possible argument having been made effectively somewhere. The oral arguments are a nice formality, but I'd be bored if I were him, too.
And, yeah, I like Yoshino, too, and that's not one of his finer moments. Then, that kind of intellectual projection is highly rewarded in the legal academy, so I can see why he'd have gotten in the habit.
Freder,
Stop digging, bub. Justice Thomas is just the man who grew up among your crab pickers. He knows. You don't.
And don't hide behind a "language" vs. "dialect" dodge. I know personally a brilliant cajun gentleman who could read you "King Lear," flawlessly, and you'd not get every other word. Dialects often suggest distinctive accents.
I must conclude that you are Steve Martin's prototype for "The Jerk." You clearly grew up as a poor black child in Pin Point, GA, and later Savannah. Did Justice Thomas pick in you?
Freder is slyly offering an object lesson on the importance of listening instead of talking (he's being a Goofus to Justice Thomas' Gallant).
I prefer judges be listeners, not talkers, whatever the reason.
Justice Thomas has had an exemplary record of consistent decisions based on solid principles, and the rare occaisons he's spoken on judicial matters, he's been straight-forward, well reasoned, and persuasive (to those capable of listening).
What else matters?
XWL wrote:
I prefer judges be listeners, not talkers, whatever the reason.
I agree that Thomas is not a talker. That doesn't mean he's a listener. It's really sad that people repeatedly make the logical error that someone who is silent is a "listener." For those who are unaware of this, it is possible to talk AND listen. It's also possible to be silent AND not listen. Talking and listening are independent activities.
Justice Thomas has had an exemplary record of consistent decisions based on solid principles
For example? Please be specific. To get you started, please explain Thomas' position on the principle of stare decisis, and show how his "exemplary record" is consistent with this.
Hello! Why the hell can't he speak standard English with a standard, whatever that is, accent and still speak Gullah to friends, family and other close associates? No one (unless you're a stuck up prig) sounds the same all the time. And there are many people who interact in more than one language on a daily basis. As to the distinction between a dialect and a language....it isn't all that clear. Some linguistic scholars (e.g. Salikoko Mufwene) have argued that the distinction between some of these so-called other languages (creoles), like Gullah, and recognized dialects of English is the color of the skin of a language variety's speakers. If you were to travel into the British countryside and speak to those folk, you'd probably not be able to understand what they were saying, but there not speaking another language.
They would have demanded a well-spoken Negro, not some low-class gullah crab picker.
This is incredibly racist and vile crap. Why can't you just argue (like seven machos suggested) against his positions? Why are you so invested in Clarence Thomas being a liar?
joe,
I think the point is that Clarence Thomas has given a variety of reasons for his silence during oral arguments, and those reasons have shifted somewhat over time.
Are his explanations honest? I don't claim to know. I suspect they are at least a bit self-serving. Others accept his "gullah" explanation at face value and insist he has no reason for being anything but completely open and honest on this subject. However, if that's the case, I wonder why his explanation has evolved over time. Is absolute honesty about his reason for silence relative to time and place for Thomas?
Personally, I don't find this question very interesting. However, I'm amazed when I see seemingly rational people embrace irrational (or at least questionable) conclusions as it suits them. They happily distort facts and ignore contradictions as they fight to protect what they "know" is right.
As far as discussing Clarence Thomas' decisions and/or opinions, I don't think you'll see that happen here.
Prof. Althouse wrote:
Maybe everyone is picking the solution that works best with what they already want to say about Thomas or -- as with Yoshino -- what they've already said generally about how they think the world works."
Sounds like a theory of human functioning that was popularized by George Kelly of Ohio State University in 1955, called Personal Construct Theory. Robert A. Neimeyer, Ph.D., of the University of Memphis has a more contemporary elaboration of the theory. He has written some wonderful books on a constructivist approach to loss and grief.
The following was copied from: http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/pc-theory.html
"At the base of Kelly’s theory is the image of the person-as-scientist, a view that emphasizes the human capacity for meaning making, agency, and ongoing revision of personal systems of knowing across time. Thus, individuals, like incipient scientists, are seen as creatively formulating constructs, or hypotheses about the apparent regularities of their lives, in an attempt to make them understandable, and to some extent, predictable. However, predictability is not pursued for its own sake, but is instead sought as a guide to practical action in concrete contexts and relationships. This implies that people engage in continuous extension, refinement, and revision of their systems of meaning as they meet with events that challenge, or invalidate their assumptions, prompting their personal theories toward greater adequacy."
Cyrus:
I'm sure you have been just as strenuous in attacking Hillary's "I've always been a Yankees fan", "I'm a Jew" and "I'm named after Sir Edmund Hillerey" claims right?
or how about Gore's various claims about being the inspiration for Love Story, inventing the internet, working all day long in the fields and his conversion on tobacco?
I agree that Thomas is not a talker. That doesn't mean he's a listener. It's really sad that people repeatedly make the logical error that someone who is silent is a "listener."
If all we knew about Thomas is that he remained silent we could indeed not say for certain that he was listening. But of course we know more than that. We know, for example, that Thomas refers, in his written opinions, to the arguments and points made during oral argument. Which raises the glaringly obvious point that he must somehow have heard what they were.
So we know that Thomas (a) says he is listening to the arguments and (b) later gives positive proof that he knows what the content of the arguments were (which is exactly what we would expect, had he been listening).
Now I suppose you could argue (and probably will) that we still don't KNOW that Thomas really listened. Maybe he goes back and reads the transcripts later. Yeah, and maybe Chelsea isn't really Bill's daughter, and maybe Ronald Reagan was replaced by a professional impersonator after being shot (and secretly killed) by Hinckley. All of these things are impossible to disprove. But since there's no reason at all for an intelligent person to believe any of them, and since glaringly obvious alternatives (Thomas listens, Reagan lived, and Chelsea is Bill's daughter) exist -- well, it is obvious what an intelligent person should choose to believe.
Personally, I don't find this question very interesting.
So stop talking about it. It isn't like you've raised any interesting points, after all.
gahrie wrote:
I'm sure you have been just as strenuous in attacking Hillary's "I've always been a Yankees fan", "I'm a Jew" and "I'm named after Sir Edmund Hillerey" claims right?
or how about Gore's various claims about being the inspiration for Love Story, inventing the internet, working all day long in the fields and his conversion on tobacco?
Gahrie, I'm keen on debunking false claims wherever and whenever I find them. For instance, your suggestion that Gore claimed to have "invented the internet" is simply nonsense. However, it's reassuring to see that there are still at least a few people who will mindlessly repeat any distortion that they hear on their favorite talk radio show no matter how many times they've been corrected.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's claim to have "always been a Yankee fan" is a better point of comparison to the claim of Thomas. Clinton's assertion is clearly self-serving, and on that basis alone, I hold a fair amount of doubt about it. Similarly, Thomas' explanation is self-serving and since it has evolved over time, I remain skeptical.
Revenant,
Your argument is extremely silly. To the extent that Clarence Thomas references comments from oral arguments in his written opinions, it is clear that he specifically does refer to transcripts. (That is, unless you have evidence that he relies on perfect memory or personal notes.) Also, you may be unaware of this fact, but Thomas, like the other Justices, has clerks who assist in researching and writing opinions. Therefore it is easily possible that citations from oral arguments come from the research of clerks.
Neither of us know how carefully Thomas listens during oral arguments. Unlike you, I'm not inclined to wild speculation. And unlike you, I won't try to support wild speculation with obviously bogus explanations.
The standard IANAL caveat here, but other than asking a question for clarification, why is it important that a justice ask questions? With my caveat in mind, seems to me many of the hypothetical questions I have heard quoted or read, seem quite tangential. Would appreciate a lawyer's take on this.
Boy it's fun reading comments from people who find a flyspeck on a zebra and start screaming about how someone must have painted stripes on a horse.
This is incredibly racist and vile crap.
Of course it is vile and racist. The people of Savannah in the early sixties (when Thomas entered high school) were for the most part vile and racist. I was merely relating what is an historical fact.
I know personally a brilliant cajun gentleman who could read you "King Lear," flawlessly, and you'd not get every other word.
I'm sure you do, and apparently he speaks English. Ask him if when he was growing up if he had relatives who only spoke French (or Cajun) and never learned English. I am sure he will tell you yes. Forty years ago it was quite common in Cajun country. Today, there are very few French-only speakers left in Cajun country (southwest of New Orleans almost to the Texas border). In St Bernard Parish southeast of New Orleans forty years ago you would have found communities where Spanish was the primary language (that parish was settled by Spaniards from the Canary Islands in the 1740s).
Likewise, In the low country of Georgia and South Carolina, where rice cultivation was predominant up until early in the twentieth century, Gullah (or Geechee) communities were common. By the mid-twentieth century, rice cultivation had collapsed and most of the mainland communities had lost their distinctive culture and language. The surviving communities were those that lived off fishing, shrimping and crabbing on the sea islands or in the marshes (thus the crab picking slur). So yes, while there is an accent distinctive to Gullahs, it is distinct from the Gullah language.
I was first exposed to the Gullah language when I was working on a job in Brunswick, Georgia. We had a bunch of truck drivers on the job and I couldn't understand a word they were saying as they were talking amongst themselves. I just assumed that I wasn't attuned to their low country black southern accent (at the time I lived in Atlanta) even though I had lived in Georgia for five years at the time and, because of the job I had, worked with lots of working class people (both black and white) who had grown in rural southern Georgia.
My coworker was from Savannah, and he turned to me and said "do you understand what they are saying". I said "not a word." He then told me that was because they were speaking Gechee and told me all about it. Ever since then I have been fascinated by it. I learned all about the rice culture of coastal South Carolina and Georgia and the Gullah culture.
Therefore it is easily possible that citations from oral arguments come from the research of clerks.
And as I noted earlier, it is easily possible that Chelsea Clinton isn't Bill's daughter. It is just that intelligent and rational people don't believe stuff like "Thomas isn't really listening" and "Bill isn't really the father" without actual supporting evidence of it.
Revenant wrote:
It is just that intelligent and rational people don't believe stuff like "Thomas isn't really listening" and "Bill isn't really the father" without actual supporting evidence of it.
Revenant, I don't understand why you continue with the myth that I believe Thomas doesn't listen. In fact, the essential point I've been making about this from the start is that, lacking good evidence that he is or isn't a "listener," I make no assumption either way. On the other hand, you've drawn a conclusion without any particularly good evidence. That is your choice, of course, but it is extraordinarily hypocritical of you to wrongly accuse me of something that you are guilty of yourself.
Please, Revenant, read my posts more carefully so that I don't have to waste my time correcting your multiple errors in reading comprehension. Thanks.
It's reassuring to see at least two rational thinkers amongst the mob in Cyrus Pinkerton and Freder Frederson. It comes as no surprise that they also appear the most open minded and educated. Case in point, when Cyrus asks the irrational hoards (who inexplicably claim Thomas has made consistent decisions based on solid principles) to explain Thomas' position on stare decisis
witness the expansive silence.
On the other end of the spectrum you have mental limbots like Gahrie still claiming that Gore said he invented the internet. Astounding display of the extremes in contrast of ignorance and intelligence.
Case closed.
And I couldn't agree more with Roger Sweeney's statement of the self serving speeches that pretentious senators provide during confirmation hearings that are unbearably embarrassing to the observer. The worst is when Lindsey Graham gets on his high horse and spouts his horse shit.
Oh, and one more point I should bring up since it does bear relevance on the ongoing debate about whether Thomas is actually listening during oral arguments. In a speech at Chapman University last December he is quoted as saying of being a Supreme Court Justice:
“There’s not much that entices about the job,” Thomas said, answering questions from the public that provided a rare glimpse of the man behind the office. “There’s no money in it, no privacy, no big houses, and from an ego standpoint, it does nothing for me.”
Thomas, 59, said the position is satisfying because he feels he’s serving the public, and he’s honored by it, “but I wouldn’t say I like it.”
“I like sports,” Thomas said. “I like to drive a motor home.”
This sounds like a man that to a large extent is bored to death and/or even hates his job. And it does cast some doubt on those here staunchly defending Thomas claiming that he is an active listener during oral arguments.
Since no one yet has dared broach an obvious possibility, I will. That Thomas' reticence is due to being in way over his head amongst peers of far superior intellect. And yes, I've read more than a few of his written decisions and came away remarkably unimpressed with the lack of depth in his logic and poorly construed metaphors he employed in support of his opinions. In fairness, comparing that to the written decisions of his conservative colleague John Roberts, there's simply no comparison.
Post a Comment