Thomas: "There is a proliferation of rights."
I'm reading this article* about an appearance by nobody's favorite Supreme-Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and I notice that I am a bit disturbed by several things. Perhaps not actually surprised, but disturbed.
He appeared at an event organized by the Bill of Rights Institute (about which I know nothing) at which he made some remarks and answered questions from high-school students who had won an essay contest.
Here are a few things he was described, or quoted, as saying:
- “Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”
- The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives. “Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
- “This job is easy for people who’ve never done it,” he said later. “What I have found in this job is they know more about it than I do, especially if they have the title ‘law professor.’ ”
But let me stop before I quote half the article.
I am not comforted by a judge who gets so misty eyed about a flag and a crucifix in every classroom. How interesting–and Catholic, I suppose–that he should say "crucifix" rather than "cross", since the latter would be distinctly preferred over the popish former by those who would tend to grow misty eyed with him over such matters.
Even more disconcerting for a person whose job involves a large amount of work to do with civil rights is his notion that "there is a proliferation of rights".
Freedom, as expressed in constitutional rights–notably the "Bill of Rights"–is not a finite resource. It is not something that is diluted for anyone when someone else gets more. Indeed, the more there is the better it is for everyone. Where would he like to draw the line? When do we have enough, or too many rights? Who should have them? Who should not?
If he finds his job so tiresome and irksome, not to mention the dreary task of presiding over "a proliferation of rights", there's always the time-honored alternative of retiring to his cabin and fishing.
I think we all have the right to expect a Supreme Court Justice to care about the Constitution and civil rights, although Justice Thomas might find that a right too far.
———-
* Adam Liptak, "Reticent Justice Opens Up to a Group of Students", New York Times, 13 April 2009.
In: All, Personal Notebook, Will Rogers Moments
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 at 23.01
Permalink
Bush 41 nominated Thomas to fill the position vacated by Thurgood Marshall,
a distinguished and accomplished jurist of considerable intellectual depth. This
is yet one more thing to resent about the presidents Bush.
Black America has particular reason to resent the presidents Bush. Between
Thomas' performance and attitude at the Supreme Court, and Condoleezza
Rice's placeholder service as an underperforming secretary of state, those
not kindly disposed toward African Americans in high places gain examples
to point to. On that score, George W. actually made a good move when he
appointed Colin Powell to be secretary of state. But then Bush proceeded to
use, abuse and marginalize Powell at every turn.
We certainly do have a right to expect any Supreme Court Justice to hold
proactive protection of freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights as his/her
first duty.
You couldn't be more correct about rights being a zero-sum proposition,
where more for me of necessity means less for you. Maybe the best way to
describe Thomas' attitude is that it's disturbingly, unfortunately odd.
on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 at 23.11
Permalink
I have a nearly irresistible urge to say that Condi was definitely an over rated, under performing Secretary of State but that her shoes always looked terrific — but I keep thinking maybe I shouldn't.