October 2, 2007
Clarence Thomas Takes the Low Road, and Should Recuse Himself from Key Cases (Brent Budowsky)
The new term has begun for a bitterly divided court in a dangerously divided nation, and the most visible event was a Supreme Court justice using the court's return as a book promotion to remind the world of his enemies, demons, biases and vendettas.
This is extraordinary and unprecedented.
Justice Clarence Thomas should now recuse himself from any cases involving any litigants who opposed his confirmation, because his attacks on them destroy any pretense of judicial impartiality. This is a man with a chip on his shoulder, axes to grind and scores to settle.
There is no need to re-litigate the issues surrounding his confirmation, our opinions of his tenure on the court or his various commentaries on divisive political and social issues. Perhaps Justice Thomas would feel more comfortable leaving the Supreme Court and running for public office — or hosting a conservative radio talk show.
The bottom line is this: The essence of the highest court in the land is the appearance and reality of judicial impartiality, with justices who stand for judicial temperament, fairness and respect for the law without using the forum of the court to settle scores with enemies or demonize those with whom they disagree.
There will be litigants with cases before the court who opposed Thomas's confirmation, and because Justice Thomas cannot control his urge to attack them while he sits in judgment of them, he should recuse himself from cases involving any of them.
36 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Brent: Why don't you host a conservative radio talk show? You'd be as good at that as you are at being a liberal commentator. It's amazing how liberals, who claim to want diversity, verbally condemn and maim anyone of a conservative bent. It they are black, even more so.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — October 2, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I agree that Thomas's outspoken vitriol, pointed at specific people and political groups is unprecedented.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable that he would exercise equanimity if I was associated in any way with a Liberal position or with a sexual harassment case.
Comment by blaze — October 2, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
It's good to rehash this stuff. The same scum that attacked him is attacking Rush now, same tactics. Invent, distort, character assassinate when you don't like the ideology of the person in question. And grandstand, never forget to grandstand, so that your constituents know your heart is in the right place, win or lose.
Comment by Igor R. — October 2, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Recusal
The term is defined in Federal statutes as when "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or when there is "an appearance of impropriety". It is also so defined by the Code of Judicial Conduct. I prefer the term "disqualifies himself", which is also sometimes used.
It appears to be entirely at the discretion of the judicial officer in question, and there seems to be no avenue for review.
With SCOTUS being increasingly occupied by politicized justices (e.g. Scalia and Thomas), and since we have already seen Scalia decline recusal under egregious circumstances, where lies the remedy?
I presume impeachment. Or revolution. Mme. Defarge and I are acquiring a large collection of knitting needles, and our appetites have become whetted.
“There is something wrong in this country; the judicial nets are so adjusted as to catch the minnows and let the whales slip through.” Eugene V. Debs
Comment by lastcamp2 — October 2, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Uncle Tom was never qualified for the position he has held for the past number of years, but; reflecting back to the 2000 election, none of the Supreme Court Justices were qualified. Why? Bush was given the presidency. These Justices and the Bush Administration, along with l09 Congress has been the worst disaster in US history, along with the Civil War.
Comment by lhawkins — October 2, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Brent and my reps in D.C.,
The confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas were a real travesty. The way some senators, especially Arlen Specter, treated Anita Hill was unAmerican. The witness came to share important information with the committee and they did not listen; instead the Republicans at the hearing wanted to believe that she lied and so condemned the witness, while villifying her.
Comment by Glenna Harris — October 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
It's obvious that the success of a black man like Justice Thomas WITHOUT the aid and assistance of the left wing liberal govt. dependence machine is threatening.
Comment by ricardo maxwell — October 2, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I agree with Brent…
This is a man who has demonstrated that he has no respect for the Law, the Court or the People.
We don't hear a mumblin' word for decades outta this guy, except "whatever Antonin just said is right" until now when he unloads the repressed vitrol of his 15 years of kowtowing to the worst elements in our polity.
Mirrors are cheaper than therapists.
Dallas112263
Al Gore 2008!
Comment by Dallas112263 — October 2, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Robert Rosencrans wrote:
"It’s amazing how liberals, who claim to want diversity, verbally condemn and maim anyone of a conservative bent."
This sentence is preposterous in its omissions and contradictions, as follows:
A-In no way did Brent "maim" or "condemn" Justice Thomas for his "conservative bent".
What Brent did do is to point out that a judge (certainly a Supreme Court justice)has a responsibility not to allow his personal grievances and his emotional life to impinge on his sense of justice and his professional responsibility to insure that "justice is blind", ie, beyond the realm of personal prejudice.
Rosencrans, as is his habit, sets up a ridiculous "straw man" to make it convenient for him to set ablaze with the standard low-brow rightwing boilerplate designed to work its magic on the alleged minds of the low information voters who tend to be susceptible to low-brow rightwing pap.
In the circumstances made plain by Brent, Mr. Justice Thomas, is not a "conservative", or a "Black"; he is a Supreme Court Judge, ie, the last legal resort of every American.
That is a sobering responsibility and it is a legitimate concern for Americans of every political orientation when such a man betrays a personal bias on nationwide television.
Kudos to Brent.
Comment by Jay Diamond — October 2, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Everyone comes with a past and a view of the world. You just don't like Judge Thomas' views. All the Justices on the court have a past and a internal bias. To suggest he would allow that to impead his judgement on cases is to under estimate this self made man. If you're going to use this criteria, no one will be eligible for the high court; period…
Comment by Rich — October 2, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Cheez, Brent, you been out back smokin' that weed with Bill? Where are you getting this stuff on an American success story, Clarence Thomas? What attacks, opinions and commentaries are you guys talking about?
Here's the deal. I just googled "clarence thomas" — "news" and here's what I got:
"Your search - clarence thomas - did not match any documents."
Comment by Don Bacon — October 2, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Clarence Thomas: An Angry Black Man…
For Thomas, it seems, everything comes down to race….
Trackback by Jon Swift — October 2, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Come on you wingnuts, this guy is bizarre even for the elevated ranks of loony righties and kooky konservatives' klubmembers. Reading excerpts from his book makes one think that Dave Chappelle ghost wrote it in the character of his blind black white supremacist character. Even Scalia has dismissed him, stating what Scalia thought were bona fides and then, referring to Thomas, " But I'm not a nut." Go have a Coke (no hair) and a smile, Mr. Rosencrans, and say hi to Gildenstern.
Comment by Phil Graves — October 2, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
Justice Thomas has views that diametrically oppose the freedoms granted to us in the Constitution. Some of his dissents are absurd at best, nonsensical at worst. He is a rubber-stamp for the neocon agenda, to the detriment of our judicial system.
Comment by Kevin J. Reidy — October 2, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Thomas' phony indignity simply smacks of arrogance.
Apparently claiming that he is above questioning is typical of the fascist state of mind.
Could he be more hypocritical than to accept an affirmative action appointment then complain about that very program being available to other black students?
I continue to be in awe of the fruitcake right and their hypocrisy.
Comment by fascismisdead — October 2, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Brent criticizes someone based on what they do and the conservative cries racism.
Perhaps "robert" is the racist for injecting race when criticisms of Thomas have nothing to do with skin color.
Comment by Dave from queens — October 2, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
I thought Budowsky's post made sense, and addressed the issues raised in Thomas' own book as well as his performance on 60 Minutes. Thomas still seems to carry a chip on his shoulder, especially toward a number of people whom he perceives were opposed to his nomination. County judges have been overturned for such admissions; why should Thomas be any different. As for the tired, puffy-eyed old winger attack "you write like a lubrul, you must be a librul" by Rosencrans–puleeze. Even Newt is addressing the issues nowadays. Heh.
Comment by Richard L. Miller — October 2, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Liberals don't condemn and maim anybody who is conservative, just HYPOCRITES and LIARS.
Oh, and those who abandon OATHS and PROMISES that they take to achieve power.
Comment by CharlieL — October 2, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
All I can say is AMEN.
If we have lost trust in the fairness of the judiciary branch then we have lost this country.
The shame of it is with this position, this man could have done so much for this country. When history judges him in turn it will not be kind.
Comment by Helen — October 2, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
Brent
I agree with your essay on Justice Thomas. He has shown himself to be an intractable enemy of Liberals, women, Black People, and the powerless in his shameful book. At least 40 % of citizens in The United States (I would use a higher number) fall under the rhetoric of rage, revenge, and destruction that this bitter, small, broken man uses.
What kind of Supreme Court can you have with such a Born-Again hater determined to get revenge on his enemies, make himself into a permanent ""victim" and overturn the laws that are passed that he does not approve of?
He is a sad clown and his book will be used by historians to judge him harshly as the most biased Justice since Justice Tanney.
If a Progressive/Liberal Justice had so much hatred and bile against his/her perceived enemies (Anita Hill is "treasonous"), I would favor that Justice's Impeachment and removal also.
If you are a woman with a Sexual Harassment Case, a black seeking racial redress under existing laws, you have one vote against you before any argument.
And as we all know, Thomas is so bitter and his mind is so mediocre that he asks no questions in Oral Argument.
Comment by tomjfrombfflo — October 2, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
I see Rosencrans still hasn't moved to Israel or Saudi Arabia, where he would fit in with the other theocrats and fascist extremists. The moral hypocrisies that define your character render your existence a joke.
Comment by VettaKing — October 2, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Great idea! I wonder if Anita Hill has considered this as a possible career move. Imagine hiring her to argue your case before the Court knowing you could reduce it to an eight justice court. Hmmm….
Comment by Keith — October 2, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
I absolutely despise it when someone hides their sheer inadequacy behind the phony blanket of race.
Justice Thomas is not and was not qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. He knows it; Bush 1 knew it; the other justices on the bench know it (which really boils his blood); journalists know it; and most Americans who pay attention to these things know it.
Let's not forget Thomas had a drinking problem at one time. Which goes a long way to explain his recent narcissism with an inferiority complex outburst and his past bad behaivior.
Like Professor Anita Hill said yesterday, when you can't defend yourself with facts, attack the other person.
Comment by Mimi Schaeffer — October 3, 2007 @ 5:30 am
Brent,
You really need a job so you can do nsomething constructive with your life.
Comment by Jim Dailing — October 3, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Just for the record, Anita Hill took and passed a lie detector exam confirming the truth of her testimony.
Clarence Thomas refused to submit to such a test.
Comment by J. Bush — October 3, 2007 @ 10:45 am
More for the record was that Professor Hill was not the only black woman sexually harassed by Thomas when he was their boss. Thomas had a history. Back to the point, as a sitting justice, it is bizarre to go public with vitriol and paranoia. This is unprofessional and revealing of instability. Never the swiftest of legal minds, it could well be that Thomas's lapse is indicative of mental deterioration.
Comment by Pat Williams — October 3, 2007 @ 11:36 am
links for 2007-10-03…
Democrats Propose Tax Surcharge for War (tags: iraq democrats) After four wins: Are the Patriots this good? The combined record of New England's first four victims is 4-12. (tags: sports patriots nfl football) Limbaugh: VoteVets lied to soldier in……
Trackback by Oliver Willis — October 3, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Thomas is bizarre, he had a drinking problem, he harassed females, he has phony indignity, he's hypocritical, he's angry–oh, what a despicable man he is! Nobody else in the world has problems like Clarence Thomas! Hah.
I agree with Robert, the real problem that you people have with Thomas is that he's black.
Hey,I'm as far left as one can get (ask Robert) and I say that, reading your hateful words against Clarence Thomas, a black man who made it from a shack in Georgia to the Supreme Court on his own ability, despite the senate whiteys that tried to destroy him, I say that it's obvious that YOU PEOPLE ARE RACIST–a modern-day lynch mob.
Comment by Don Bacon — October 3, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Igor, your boy Rush, he of the "hell no I won't go" element of stay at home storm troopers will be outted within the next year.
The revisionism won't work. It is of the same order as "conservative" or "conservative christian."
There is no such thing as either.
Conservatives were honorable people.
Christianity is the most liberal institution ever conceived. "Conservative christian?"
Impossible.
The hypocrisy continues.
Comment by fascismisdead — October 3, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Dead fascist, outted? As what? A closet storm trooper? Or a non-christian? I don't care if anyone is a christian, I'm an atheist, but turning Jesus into a socialist has been a side project for the radicals lately.
Right now Harry Reid thinks he can tell Rush what he meant. I think Harry Reid will be outted as a phony soldier for truth and justice before Rush is outted for anything.
Comment by Igor R. — October 3, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Justice Clarence Thomas is still a liar (Anita Hill) and full of self hate as a black person. Because of that self hate he just loves to persecute anyone who would cast a light on his self hate and self delusion.
sf
Comment by Stuart Feen — October 3, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
If Clarence Thomas is an angry person, it just shows he human, having endured the spectacle of much ado about nothing they put him through at the confirmation hearings.
I considers myself a liberal, but not all who call themselves liberal know the meaning of the word. I have seen more anger and contempt from people who claim to know this man, than I ever heard from Thomas himself.
The Terri schiavo case was reminiscent, on the other side of the aisle. In both cases interest groups were trying to lynch a person on gossip and innuendo. In this country, if a person wrongs you, we have a process, Anita Hill had many years to press charges or suit, and she chose not to. Instead she decided to humiliate him on national TV.
Comment by Jeremiah — October 3, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
When the Court decided the Bush-Gore election, didn't 2 justices have visible verifiable conflicts of interest that should have recused them–wasn't Thomas's wife on Bush's Transition Team, and wasn't Scalia's son in the law firm that argued the case for Bush before the Court?
Comment by Molly R — October 4, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Good golly Ms. Molly, I think you wanted Gore to win!
Comment by Igor R. — October 4, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
[...] Meantime, Clarence Thomas — who is to Supreme Court Justices as G. W. Bush is to U.S. Presidents — is shamelessly flogging his angry memoir by exploiting the Court's opening day. More to come. But see THIS post from a conservative Thomas fan. [...]
Pingback by First Tuesday In October | Democratic Policy and Party Talk — October 5, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
[...] Inside AdWords crew wrote an interesting post today!.Here's a quick excerptThe new term has begun for a bitterly divided court in a dangerously divided nation, and the most visible event was a Supreme Court justice using the court’s return as a book promotion to remind the world of his enemies, demons, … [...]
Pingback by ThemePassion - Best stuff about design! » Clarence Thomas Takes the Low Road, and Should Recuse Himself from … — October 17, 2007 @ 1:08 pm