Clarence Thomas, Rupert Murdoch, And The Candidates
The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.
The long-awaited publication of Clarence Thomas's memoir, My Grandfather's Son, out Monday, makes you wonder: how come none of the presidential candidates have said a word about the Supreme Court in any of their debates? Three sitting justices are expected to resign in the next four years--and they're all on the liberal side: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The publication facts behind Thomas's book ought to be discussed by all the candidates: he received an advance of $1.5 million in 2003 from HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. If you thought the Court dealt with any issues of relevance to Murdoch, you might call it a conflict of interest for Thomas to accept that payment--far more than any sitting justice ever received from any single source. At least you might mention the fabled "appearance of impropriety." You might call the $1.5 million a thank-you gift from Murdoch for services rendered. You might even wonder if it might be a subtle suggestion to other justices who will be ruling on Murdoch-related issues in the future.
Of course Thomas could avoid that "appearance of impropriety" by recusing himself for the rest of his career from any case raising issues concerning Murdoch, Fox, the First Amendment, copyright law, libel, or any other issues in media or communications law. That would give him a lot of time off.
Yes, it was the first President Bush who nominated Clarence Thomas to succeed civil rights legend Thurgood Marshall - but it was Democrats in the Senate who put him on the court. The teeth-gnashing facts about Clarence Thomas's confirmation can be found in the new book by Washington Post reporters Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. The vote in the Senate on Thomas was 52-48 - the smallest margin for any justice in more than a century. A shift of three votes would have kept Thomas off the court.
Here's the horrible part: at least four senators who voted for Thomas came to regret their vote within a year or two. Merida and Fletcher report that the senators who changed their mind about Thomas after voting for him include David Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma; John Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana; Fritz Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, and Warren Rudman, Republican of New Hampshire.
Even some of Thomas's most avid defenders stopped saying he told the truth about Anita Hill; Orrin Hatch told Merida and Fletcher that, even if Anita Hill told the truth, what she said about Thomas sexually harassing her wasn't really all that bad.
As for Thomas's memoir, it's a long howl of outrage against the liberals who opposed his confirmation 16 years ago. The book was treated by HarperCollins as if it were the next Harry Potter - "embargoed" until Oct. 1, the first day of the Supreme Court's fall term -- a total clampdown that made it impossible for anyone to buy the book until Monday morning. I tried to buy it at my local Barnes and Noble Sunday night at 10 pm, and was told by a nervous manager that if they sold it to me even two hours before the "embargo" ended, "the publisher would see it on the computer and we'd be fined."
Yet somehow Rush Limbaugh managed to get hold of a copy - Thomas appeared on his show for a full ninety minutes Monday morning. (Maybe the fact that Thomas presided at Rush's wedding was a factor here - an unprecedented act for a sitting Justice.) Murdoch's Fox News is next in line, with a Sean Hannity interview scheduled for Tuesday.
On the other hand, Nina Totenberg, NPR's Supreme Court reporter, who broke the sexual harassment story during Thomas's confirmation hearing back in 1991, did a piece on the book on Saturday. She's one of Thomas's nemeses; somebody will definitely be in trouble for the fact that she beat the embargo.
To read more OffTheBus coverage and get involved here.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The fact that Clarence Thomas, an extremely mentally disturbed sexual/social deviant, is serving on the Supreme Court is shameful and dangerous. Thomas will continue to damage our democratic principles and institutions with his neo-fascist opinions.
I remember seeing the hearings live on TV. After the testimony of people in favor of Anita Hill vs. the testimony of Thomas supporters, I thought that Anita's friends and co-workers won overwhelmingly. But I turned out, I guess, to be wrong.
For me, there are many bad aspects to Thomas being on the court, many! But the worst was how upset and dismayed Thurgood Marshall was, when he learned that Bush had nominated Thomas. Clarence Thomas is not 1/1000th the man that the brave, heroic Thurgood Marshall was.
Someone complained that the bloggers here are "nit-picking Hillary's position on Iraq."
Well, son, then I guess questioning her vote on Iran last week is just picking nits off of gnats.
"[H]ow come none of the presidential candidates have said a word about the Supreme Court in any of their debates?"
I'll go out on a limb and guess 'because none of the journalists asked them a question about the Supreme Court?'
"The publication facts behind Thomas's book ought to be discussed by all the candidates"
Yeah, because you know it's one of the issues foremost on the minds of the voters.
"If you thought the Court dealt with any issues of relevance to Murdoch, you might call it a conflict of interest for Thomas to accept that payment--far more than any sitting justice ever received from any single source."
If accepting ANY payment is a potential conflict of interest, why does the amount matter? Since justices are appointed for life, should they not be allowed to write a book and sell it for profit?
"Of course Thomas could avoid that "appearance of impropriety" by recusing himself for the rest of his career from any case raising issues concerning Murdoch, Fox[sic],"
Only if Murdoch or FOX are NAMED as plaintiffs (or defendants) in a case before the court. Seriously, is this Off The Bus or Civics 101?
"Yet somehow Rush Limbaugh managed to get hold of a copy"; "Nina Totenberg ... did a piece on the book on Saturday."
Commentators received advanced copies? What a scoop!
You forget on thing that the book will make more for Mr. Murdock than what he gave to Judge Thomas. Old Bill Clinton got $ 4 million advance for his book, it common pratice to lock in the author.
Yes Tom, but it is highly improper and unethical for a sitting Public servant to be paid any money by anyone except his Public Service salary.
Every time I see ol' GHWB (41) acting like a fairly normal human being (e.g., tsunami relief), I just remember this SCOTUS nomination and my sympathy vanishes. Bush the Old basically gave Scalia two votes for the rest of his life. Even people who agree with Scalia's politics should find this to be a bad idea in judicial practice.
And now, getting paid (and keeping) $1.5M from an entity whose parent entities have been, and will certainly be, before the Court... What an outstanding example of judicial rectitude! Certainly makes me inclined to believe what he says ..........
If the consequences for Thomas' irrational and frankly mentally unstable hatred of so-called "liberals" (a propaganda straw-man construct) weren't so grave, Thomas would be a truly tragic figure. Like many with such pathological hatred, he hates anyone who makes him look at himself or who sees through his facade.
He reminds me of a friend who is mentally ill with narcissism, who years after committing a transgression with severe consequences against another, had completely rationalized the incident to where he was the victim, totally without blame. The circumstances are frighteningly similar, and I believe his fitness to serve should be considered.
Thomas has had years to reframe the events of his confirmation. He squirms with shame, and he is desperately seeking to throw that shame off on whomever he can. The crack in his psyche is coming from the fact that in actuality, he does see what the public sees in him. He knows he is lying, and it multiplies his self-loathing.
That being said, my heart goes out to him for his suffering. It is really sad when you separate it from the incalculable impropriety of having someone of his diminished emotional capacity in a position to decide the constitutionality of our nation's laws.
Regardless of whether you believe Thomas' bona fides stand up on paper, and I don't know enough about his qualifications to have an opinion on it, he (along with Scalia and Rehnquist before him) are/were completely lacking in the integrity, objectivity, and emotional intelligence necessary to be members of our Supreme Court. They have debased that body with their partisanship, and with their convoluted, self-justifying reasoning. History will not be kind to the people who appointed them, and those who voted to confirm them.
I think you are wrong about the narcissism. Narcissists believe that they really are better than others, while Thomas is steeped in self loathing. He is twisted and pathetic.
Anyone interested in a good overview of the evidence supporting Anita Hill should check out Ruth Marcus' op ed piece in today's (10/3) Washington Post. Or read "Strange Justice" by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson.
Clarence Thomas? If you ask me, now it is the constitution. That is getting lynched.
60Minutes was kinder to him than Fox would be to any liberal
Anita Hill has an op-ed in the New York Times today. It says it all.
Yes, and Huffington Post bloggers have ignored it so far. I'm really, sadly, surprised at this oversight.
12 comments to a brilliant blog about a Supreme Court Justice owned by the Republican Party. How did this happen in this country?
That a politically biased, bigoted and dishonest legal dimwit ended up on the Supreme Court for life is explained by the pathetic response to this blog. Nobody cares, and the Democrats don't have a clue. If there was a liberal on the court as in debt to the Democrats as Thomas is to the Republicans and now Murdock, the Republican talking points and propaganda machine would be in full power attacking his credibility and exposing his bias and even the word impeachment would be up for grabs. But the Democrats are more interested in nit picking Hillary's position on Iraq or her nuanced health plan.
Vitriol notwithstanding, I agree with your assertion that the Dems need to run this up a flag pole.
Also, a sincere question. Apparently, Thomas lied during his hearing, as did Roberts and Alito. Not only about Anita Hill, but also about his fidelity to stare decisis. Isn't that impeachable?
Right on "abluevoice"! The audacious conduct of the Repubs is beyond belief. There is no bigger issue facing America than the three potential nominees available to the next President. Alito and Roberts have clearly shown what direction they are moving. They have Scalia and Thomas. It is mind boggling that the democrats so afraid of declaring the obvious conflicts and lack of integrity of many of these right wing Justices have shown. I also agree that I am so sick of nit picking Hillary - now attacking her laugh, while the Right and Repubs stay united and destroy America for riches and power.
Watching the 60 Minutes interview was extremely difficult. Thomas is one sick man. He has never come to grips with the fact that just as much as he is a man, he is also a black-American man.
Frankly, after watching him and then reading some of the reports on his background, one must come to the conclusion that the Peter Principle is in action: each shall ascend to a height just beyond his qualifications (or something to that effect). In other words, why would his brief term as a judge make him even half-way qualified to be a Supreme Court justice? It wouldn't.
Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall, and he knows that. Poor man.
I have a theory. In transitioning from Gullah to Yale, he came to buy into all the lies about African Americans. He sure seems to be filled with self-hatred.
Others, though, say he's a good man once you get to know him. He bends over backwards to help others, especially those who worked for him. Odd that he doesn't bring the same sentiments to the bench.
We need no Republicans in the White House or Supreme Court for a few centuries! The real possibility that 1 or 2 Supremes will die or retire is THE single worst-case scenario that we face right now domestically. If GW gets any more appointments we are in big trouble!
I have not seen 60 minutes or much of the hype so I feel rather objective in my opinion on this. "Supreme" is a misnomer as these folks ideally should be free of destructive bias. Presidents, I believe, should not have control of these appointments nor should the Congress. Most of them are way too partisan to the detriment of this country! The courts are predjudiced by ideology and it would be best if this could be minimized. How? Panel of ordinary citizens, like us?, Appointments by Ethical specialists?, Amend Constitution to reflect societal changes (i.e. quackery), ???
Personally, I believe that we extra-ordinary citizens would be more qualified with info. to make many of our national decisions! Clarence Thomas is a sad figure as I see it. I have always felt that he is not qualified-even without the Anita Hill incident! Roberts, Scalia, NO, NO, NO! Objectivity is required and they all lack it. Change the Constitution to disallow Lifetime appointment for it is too important of a responsibility for these biased individuals to continue to disable the rights of the American populace. We need accountability and these 4-5 have proven that they are doing the bidding of their masters. Peace, JaneC.
That whole "lynching" speech came right out of the Atwater-right-wing nut playbook: Total bullshit, but nasty enough to make enough Democrats run like rabbits. It worked then, and it continues to work now. Clarence Thomas is a nut, a liar, and a hypocrite. Hopefully, all of his anger will result in his aorta exploding, and he'll go where the goblins go.
Clarence Thomas invoked the old lYNCHING trick to get comfirmed to the supreme court. He said in his interview on 60 minutes that he is a man and black as being secondary, is this guy kidding me. I think he did abuse Mrs Anita Hill and thinks black folks in this country are pretty dumb.
This guy is full of it and $1.5 million dollars for a book deal, tell me something about it. Hope he will be waiting for News Corp. when they are sued in the Supreme Court.
We will be lucky if Stevens makes it till the end of gee dubyas term. God help us if he doesn't.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
