'Supreme Discomfort' leaves Clarence Thomas as an open case
By David J. Garrow
Clarence THOMAS is the most intriguing and perplexing of the U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices. Sixteen years ago, Thomas narrowly won Senate confirmation following an ugly debate over unproved allegations of sexual harassment. Once on the court, Thomas quickly began articulating a consistent, conservative judicial philosophy in which the original intent of the Constitution's framers, as best that can be determined, trumps all other arguments and considerations. This is the kind of judicial ‘logic’ that simply makes no sense. His philosophy is simply his…he cannot determine in any way what the framers of the constitution were thinking. For him, or others, to think they have some sort of insight is egotism at its worst. And the ‘unproven’ allegations of sexual harassment? They were proven all right; just not believed. Men do stick together when threatened and Anita Hill had threatened one of their own. Bad! Bad girl! Now Thomas has repaid that political debt by always pretending to somehow know the minds of the original framers of the constitution. Pomposity has no limits obviously.
Yes, it is his opinion. But the alternative to the original intent logic is thinking that it is a living document, which I agree with, but it is still simply the opinion of the justices. I can't think of any way to ensure that justice is given to each case, when the justices are simply using their own logic, life experiences, and simple opnions to interpret the laws of this country that have the ability to completely change the social order. Whew!
ReplyDeleteExactly! But for a Justice to claim that it's the "original intent" is plain wrong and a cop out. We're talking about an intellectual lightweight here...
ReplyDeleteUsing an 18th century document to govern a 21st century nation was never the intent of the framers and we don't have to guess at that...they said so!