(click on ads for more details)

Criticism of Justice Thomas Reveals Much About His Critics

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently spoke at the annual meeting of the American Enterprise Institute, urging people to stand up for their principles even when they have to stand alone.  One would think that people of all political stripes would find that theme to be inspiring, but some critics have found it to be very upsetting.  Louisville's own Betty Baye wrote a rude attack of Justice Thomas and his speech, saying that, since Thomas is in a position of power and has it made, he should stop whining and complaining.  These criticisms not only give us an understanding of Clarence Thomas’ position – they also give us a window into the thought processes of Thomas' critics.  Why would anyone find it offensive to suggest that people should stand up for their principles?

          Both in his speech and in his decisions, Justice Thomas stands on principle.  He subscribes to the traditional view of the law as depicted by the blindfolded lady holding the scales of justice.  Thomas believes that the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to make law, and that justice should be blind – that the law should apply equally to everyone regardless of their skin color, religion, wealth, or political connections.  But his critics find that view to be very offensive.  In their world, the lady has removed her blindfold, has put on a set of green eyeshades, and is adding weights to the side she wants to win.

          Thomas' critics take a brute force approach.  They believe that, when a person is in power, he should use that power to aid his friends and harm his enemies.  Take off the blinders and weigh in for your pals!  They think the law should be bent, twisted, and "reinterpreted" to suit each individual situation as needed to achieve that goal.  (It all depends on what “is” is.)  Since Thomas is not using his power to promote superior rights for blacks, his critics believe that must mean that he has sold out to whites, and he therefore should be despised.  It is inconceivable to the critics that Thomas might simply be trying to uphold the law as he understands it, applying it equally to everyone.  The idea of equal justice under law, of standing on such a principle, is completely foreign to these people.  While they may claim to support equal justice, what they really want is special rights for special people, and they want to be among the special people -- just as in Orwell's Animal Farm, where "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

          It is no wonder that this group of people was willing to support President Clinton’s perjury and other unethical behavior while he was in office but suddenly finds his pardon of Mark Rich and the pilfering of the White House furniture to be horrible now that Clinton is out of power.   In their power politics approach, principle takes a back seat to expediency.  Anything goes as long as they get what they want.

          Baye and other critics have accused Thomas of intervening in the vote-recounting fiasco in Florida in order to repay a political debt to former President Bush, who appointed Thomas.  Again, this accusation reflects the critics’ mindset – not Thomas’ motivation.  In Baye's world, being on the Supreme Court is all about power and using it to help friends and harm enemies.  Clearly, if she were on the Supreme Court, she would have voted in favor of Gore, regardless of the law.  Baye apparently cannot imagine that Thomas made his decision based upon legal principles and would have made the same decision regardless of who the players were. 

          Thank goodness we still have many judges like Thomas, who do not believe that they are the law but rather believe that their job is to respect the law.  They understand that it is really in the interest of everyone for our judges to respect the law, not to try to twist it beyond recognition in order to exercise raw power.  It is a pity that Baye and other critics, who have benefited so much from our striving to live up to basic principles, such as equal justice under law, are now doing their best to destroy all respect for those principles and for the people, like Thomas, who try to uphold them.

Light side

Revised judicial oath:
"I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know."