Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring in June, during his confirmation hearings in 1990.
It turns out that Justice David Souter leaves a middling record on the Supreme Court. In fact, Court-watchers are welcoming his replacement as a chance to appoint a larger personality on the court:
In replacing Justice Souter, President Obama will almost surely pick another liberal. But Mr. Obama may also consider Justice Souter as a kind of counterexample and choose a bigger and bolder figure, one who sets agendas, forges consensus and has a long-term vision about how to shape the law.It's amazing how Souter, a Republican appointee, has been spared the diabolical lynchmob attacks that Justice Clarence Thomas endured over the years. Both justices were appointed by George H.W. Bush. But Thomas is a black conservative. He's never been accorded even a shred of decency by the same kind of bigoted leftists who today look the other way when President Barack Obama guts the successful D.C. school voucher program (a program providing a chance for black kids to get a good education).
Legal scholars have praised Justice Souter’s care, candor and curiosity. But they have said that he is, by temperament and design, a low-impact justice devoted to deciding one case at a time, sifting through the facts and making incremental adjustments in legal doctrine to take account of them.
Other justices have had more impact, gaining influence through personal and intellectual persuasion.
Justice Thomas released his autobiography in 2007, My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. ABC News ran an interview with him at the time. Note how Thomas eviscerates his racist Democratic attackers:
"People get bent out of shape about the fact that when I was a kid, you could not drink out of certain water fountains. Well, the water was the same. My grandfather always said that, 'The water's exactly the same.' But those same people are extremely comfortable saying I can't drink from this fountain of knowledge," Thomas says. "They certainly don't see themselves as being like the bigots in the South. Well, I've lived both experiences. And I really don't see that they're any different from them" ....The real bigots are the Democratic leftists who've given David Souter - who's scholarly but undistinguished - a free ride, while subjecting the formidable Justice Thomas to a 20-year lynching that only the left can give.
Thomas spoke at length about how his own experiences as a black conservative and a black justice prove his point. Because he was admitted to Yale Law School under affirmative action after graduating with honors from Holy Cross, he said people have questioned his qualifications and discounted his achievements. Even as a Justice, he says, people continue to believe he merely has "followed" Justice Scalia because a black man couldn't possibly hold those views or be smart enough to come up with them on his own.
"Give me a break. I mean this is part of the, you know, the black guy is supposed to follow somebody white. We know that," Thomas says. "Come on, we know the story behind that. I mean there's no need to sort of tip-toe around that. The story line was that, well I couldn't be doing this myself, he must be doing it for me because I'm black. That's obvious.
"Again, I go back to my point. Who were the real bigots? It's obvious," Thomas says [emphasis added].
**********
UPDATE: See also, Michelle Malkin, "Smearing Jeff Sessions":
As we learned during the Clarence Thomas hearings, character assassination is the stock and trade of Democrats in the SCOTUS wars. Refresh your memories of how outrageously Ted Kennedy and companytried to beat Justice Alito over the head with the race card. Kennedy then attempted to paint Alito as hostile to women, while maintaining a membership at a club that bans women from membership. They have no shame.Read the whole thing, here.
**********
UPDATE II: See Joseph Klein, "The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas":
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been a punching bag for the Left ever since his bruising confirmation hearings. Failing to derail his nomination with Anita Hill’s ambush of unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges, the Left has attacked Thomas ever since on everything from betraying his race to being a right-wing ideologue in the shadow of Justice Scalia. I have always thought that he was unfairly maligned during his confirmation hearings and that he has been given short shrift as an independent jurist who takes his constitutional responsibilities to interpret - not invent - the law seriously.
Now comes along a book that should make every one of Justice Thomas’s Leftist critics immediately apologize for their lies about him (which, no doubt, they are too cowardly and intellectually dishonest to do): The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006: A Conservative’s Perspective by Henry Mark Holzer. Mr. Holzer has written the definitive rebuke to Clarence Thomas’s detractors in the media, academia and the political elite. In doing so, he also provides an excellent survey of the history and current landscape of constitutional law for anyone generally interested in this subject.
15 comments:
Clarence Thomas is, by consensus, one of the weakest of the Supreme Court justices. Nothing racist here, Donald. He's just not very good, and has rarely contributed much to any debate. He's weak, intellectually. That's simply the truth. I don't care where he stands or who appointed him. Scalia I dislike for other reasons, but I will give him props for being able to argue his position. I always disagree with it, but that's because I am diametrically opposed politically.
That said, I have said, and maintain, that W. made two very good picks for the Supreme Court. I have no problem with Alito and Roberts. At all. I do believe in a balance. But that's just me. I know that's a bit radical and nihilist. That said, I hope Obama's pick is a good ol' liberal.
But there is no bigotry aimed at Thomas. I consider Souter a bit stronger though. No doubt about it.
I loved Thomas' autobiography, as did my wife and she normally shuns politics but was curious to see his side of the Anita Hill story since she had only heard Hill's side.
"He's weak, intellectually."
Actually, he's not, Tim. That's the racist attack that you're perpetuating. Shame on you.
The New York Times reports that Souter's a minor figure on the Court, undistinguished, but where were the left's attacks on him?
There's your double standard for you, Tim.
"But there is no bigotry aimed at Thomas."
God, man, you're in another world ...
"They certainly don't see themselves as being like the bigots in the South. Well, I've lived both experiences. And I really don't see that they're any different from them ...."
The inherent racism of the left is so transparent a blind person could see it.
They treat conservative blacks who have left the liberal plantation as little more than contemptible escaped slaves.
Besides, we all know that only liberals know what is best for black Americans, which is, of course, why the democrats have been working so hard to keep them impoverished and dependent.
Liberalism is one of the biggest lies that has ever been fostered off on the people of America.
If it actually worked as promised, poverty would have ended in the 1960's.
Yet, here we are $10 Trillion later, and the percentage of the population that is living in "poverty" is essentially the same as it was 60 years ago.
Liberalism is 200% bullshit. -Dave
Donald. Speaking of retiring...
More on Souter...
From The Heritage Foundation:
"Though certainly no originalist, in numerous cases Justice David Souter has not bought into the worst excesses of judicial activism, either. In these cases, he has rejected the activist "empathy" standard promoted by President Barack Obama to instead cast votes and write opinions that are in accord with the demands of the Constitution and the rule of law. And particularly in the areas of crime and punishment and lawsuit abuse, he has broken ranks with the Court's more liberal wing to do so."
Also, from the NYT blog:
His greatest contribution, however, lies not in any isolated set of opinions but in the intellectual rigor that he brought to the more liberal wing of a deeply divided Court. At the time of Justice Souter’s appointment, the liberals were suffering from intellectual exhaustion and had all but ceded to Justice Antonin Scalia and his fellow conservatives the mantle of principled judicial decision-making based on an “objective” view of constitutional text and history.
But in a series of dissents from the Rehnquist Court’s states’ rights agenda, Justice Souter showed that constitutional history and text (not just squishy notions of a “living Constitution”) also supports a decidedly more liberal view of constitutional law.
---
Thomas, let's see...well he upheld the decision to discriminate against gay Boy Scout leaders. And he decided in favor of Gore vs. Bush. No surprise.
Thomas is known for saying in his summations things like "I concur." At least Scalia would write seven pages of gibberish.
Thomas is simply not a memorable justice Donald. Why are you playing the race card here? Try being original.
Tim: Again, you repeat leftist smears, and you play a double standard. Why hasn't Souter been attacked by the left as less than stellar? He's a liberal, face it.
The Times piece to which I link cites legal experts who say Souter was undistinguished, personally and intellectually. A "low-impact justice." Did you even read the post I cited before scrounging around to hang your hat?
You're really invested in this.
I don't care about Souter either way. It's the hypocrisy that's just exquisite
Donald: I'm not repeating anything. I've just never been impressed with Thomas. Is that a thought crime now? Who even brought Thomas into this debate? Not me.
Are we playing the game called Who's the Least Memorable Supreme Court Justice? Fine, then Souter and Thomas can battle it out. I would give Thomas the edge, though, given his reticence to comment on cases.
“People get bent out of shape about the fact that when I was a kid, you could not drink out of certain water fountains. Well, the water was the same. My grandfather always said that, ‘The water’s exactly the same.’”
Thank you, Mr. Justice Clarence the Clown Thomas for clarifying this whole civil rights thing.
Conservatives constantly whine about how Affirmative Action results in mediocre black people being given jobs they aren’t qualified for just because they’re black. And yet, the only mediocre black person I can name that got a job just because he was black is Clarence Thomas, and conservatives gave him his job.
Does anyone recognize how race hustlers like Tim so easily falls into their actual racist tendencies? If there is anyone who is intellectually weak it is Tim and his ilk on the Left.
Saschal,
Most conservatives do not like affirmative action because it denies minorities the chance to succeed on their own merit. No one likes being a token and one can only justify to themselves that affirmative action was good for them. I have seen it too many times and watched many quit for feelings of inadequacy.
Every person needs to feel that they have the wherewithal to succeed on their own with little help from others. You need to stop using the distant past as an excuse for what seems like reverse racism on your part. You want so bad to see racism every where that, like Tim, you will turn everything that happens into racism.
A Little sick if you ask me.
I restate, and Tim's actions prove it, Leftists are the real racists, bigots, sexists, et al. They could not survive without creating a rift between good people of every color, gender, et al, for they would be seen as they really are.
Before you start Tim, I have a number of minorities, women that come to me because I am very good at what I do. When they need to have their asses kicked, metaphorically speaking, I do it. To really care about someone's progress is to do what is required to help them achieve it and this does not include giving it to them for that only cheats them and treats them like second class individuals. Everyone deserves better than the sick pity exhibited by the Left.
Congrats there Dennis,
You might have a PHD thesis on the books - aka - "Liberals are the racists"........
Sounds like a pretty sound "argoooooment"
emphasis on the "goo".
Tomas posts previous comment
Dennis: That was blather. Once again, I never said anything about affirmative action. You need to actually read stuff first.
Now, why am I racist?
My opinion on Thomas is based solely on his performance. Or lack thereof. Trying to make this into a racial issue is classic bait and switch.
If someone can point me to his landmark cases, please do so now.
Tim:
From Joseph Klein at FrontPage Magazine:
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been a punching bag for the Left ever since his bruising confirmation hearings. Failing to derail his nomination with Anita Hill’s ambush of unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges, the Left has attacked Thomas ever since on everything from betraying his race to being a right-wing ideologue in the shadow of Justice Scalia. I have always thought that he was unfairly maligned during his confirmation hearings and that he has been given short shrift as an independent jurist who takes his constitutional responsibilities to interpret - not invent - the law seriously.
Now comes along a book that should make every one of Justice Thomas’s Leftist critics immediately apologize for their lies about him (which, no doubt, they are too cowardly and intellectually dishonest to do): The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006: A Conservative’s Perspective by Henry Mark Holzer. Mr. Holzer has written the definitive rebuke to Clarence Thomas’s detractors in the media, academia and the political elite. In doing so, he also provides an excellent survey of the history and current landscape of constitutional law for anyone generally interested in this subject."
Thomas? Weak?
Sure, and Sowell just parrots right-wing talking points.
And Steele is a puppet for Rush.
Souter had as much intellectual insight into law as a miner without a pick or a flashlight.
Talk about weak. The man's only hailed opinion on a ruling was REAFFIRMING a previous ruling.
He was Casper the effing Ghost justice.
Jordan: You are obviously not a student of the Supreme Court. Justice Souter is actually highly commended by both sides, at different times and for different reasons. Some consider his opinions the most well written, and the most human.
Here's a piece that can catch you up a bit, because it looks to me that you have no clue.
Post a Comment