Clarence Thomas After Scalia's Death

Comments

1
Clarence Thomas was not confirmed to the US Supreme Court until 1991. You are incorrect again.
2
My favorite Mudede post of all time. Excellent use of squirrels.
3
Good Morning Charles & Happy Presidents' Day,
I'll start by saying may Antonin Scalia RIP. He served the nation for better or for worse for 30 years.

I haven't seen the film you referenced. I may check it out. I can say that in essence, comparing him, Thomas to a freed slave who remains with his former white master is a bit of a stretch just because he agreed with many of Justice Scalia's opinions. Justice Thomas is a thinking conservative jurist not some clueless lamb who follows his shepherd. And the last time I checked, he is an independent vote on the court.

Look, I get what's at stake on the high court, the tip Left-of-center vs. Right-of-center. There will be a showdown for the next appointee. Every president whether Reagan who appointed Scalia or Obama has a prerogative to select the best person for the high bench. I wish every candidate was selected without political consideration but only merit. Alas, that will never be the case.
4
a man who might be loved indirectly by squirrels fattened by climate change

I loved that. Nice one, Charles.
5
Awesome as always Charles.
6
Sounds like an interesting film - hadn't even heard of it until now.

Unlike Holt, however, Thomas' mind was poisoned with self loathing. The only transformation he'l ever undergo is from being alive to dead.
7
Charles, My after lunch coffee hasn't kicked in and I didn't see where you were going with this, indeed had forgotten that the post had something to do with Clarence Thomas, until you spelled it out. Zing! Made for fun reading.
8
I've seen the film, but I don't recall if Holt had been born a slave--that is, had he loved the slaveowner all his life?

But we do know Thomas was a fucked up asshole before he was appointed to the court.

Justice Thomas is more like the slave in Django Unchained.
9
Yeah. What Seatackled said. Thomas started that way, Scalia didn't "own" him. I expect nothing but the same from Thomas in the future.

And how could Charles leave off Sense and Sensibility? A nigh on perfect screenplay (written by Emma Thompson) beautifully shot, beautifully directed.
10
It seems a tad racist to suggest that Thomas isn't just as gigantic an asshole as Scalia was. I can easily understand where you are coming from given his apparent inability to ask a question in session of to author an opinion that was not straight out of Scalia's playbook but I would tread cautiously on this matter. My guess is you will find Thomas is the same asshole he always was and didn't have a white mans hand up his ass operating him like a puppet.
11
And don't forget that his damn wife called Anita Hill out of the blue a few years back and offered Hill a chance to apologize.

Can't blame the whole crock of shit that household is on Scalia.
12
Charles, you must ask yourself: who influenced whom?

According to fivethirtyeight.com, Clarence Thomas was consistently to the right of Scalia. Scalia got more press because he was a loudmouth and wrote a lot of opinions, where Clarence Thomas has generally been more quiet, and never asks a question. But if you look at their rulings as a whole, Clarence Thomas is/was more conservative than Scalia.

So while I like your analogy (I've seen the movie you refer to), it kind of falls apart if you consider that perhaps Scalia was following Clarence Thomas, not the other way around.
13
I agree, Mr. Mudede, Ride With The Devil is a great film, and greatly underappreciated. Few Civil War films ever address, let alone explore, the moral complexity of that war, instead going for the easy-cheesy Good Guys Freein' Slaves.

I loved that moment, but I won't go with your analogy: simply because Holt was an adult, who had grown emotionally, and was (certainly through circumstances) willing to change how he thought of himself. Neither Scalia nor Thomas have any reason to change, nor have they ever shown the emotional maturity required to have that level of self-reflection. Thomas is a man who's wife receives money from the very people who he makes rulings for. A man that corrupt and venal has far more growth ahead of him than something as complex and nuanced as Holt faced. Nor does he have the circumstances driving him, demanding him to grow emotionally. If anything, Thomas is likely facing a need to become more entrenched, more close-minded, more ingrained in what has brought him comfort and regard, far outweighing his ability and intellect.
14
Thomas ought to go visit the same resort
15
Justice Thomas is closely allied with the Heritage Foundation, where his wife worked for many years. She continues to be a political lobbyist for right-wing causes. I would look to her, rather than to Scalia, as the source of his ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_T…
16
I was one of the on-set dressers on that film.
Transformative experience, and a work of art.
17
I love the prospect, Charles, and would not have the--albeit slight--hope without you. Thanks.
18
The myth that Thomas's opinions were dictated by Scalia is shockingly stupid, condescending, and arguably even racist, so it is deeply bothersome to me that Mudede feels the need to repeat it. Clarence Thomas is not a fucking slave. He's a grown man with his own goddamn opinions.

This short article is a piece of shit, maybe one of the worst posts I've seen on Slog.
19
@18 on the nose.
20
@18 took the words out of my mouth.
21
I'd say a rigourous Catholic education, fully accepted, were the common factor creating the Thomas/Scalia near-duplication.

@3
There is no politically-neutral advocametric analyser; that is to say, 'merit' includes believing that the candidate can observe reality correctly, understand which of the many facts usually in play were most relevant, understand the laws correctly, reasoning correctly, self-correcting when a conclusion seems indecent (see: Orwell's sixth law of effective writing), and expressing the conclusion convincingly. All but the reasoning involves judgements that are effectively political—for example, I can't see an originalist/textualist as meriting a post because I believe they are fundamentally mistaken as to why laws made before our birth can be considered binding on us.

But even if there were such a meter, to be useful it would have some inherent level of error...and my bet is that more than nine lawyers would score at the top, within that error-bar.
22
Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bush in 1991 to replace Justice Marshall. Bush appeased civil rights groups by appointing another black man to the court but only the Bush people were aware of his extreme political views. Justice Thomas is NOT QUALIFIED to hold the position. Affirmation action was put in place to give qualified minorities the opportunity to obtain positions they would ordinarily be denied because of institutional racism. Justice Thomas is un-credentialed, the guy cannot speak nor write very well. As a 62 year old black man I'm sickened by this man because he's sitting there collecting a check paid by my tax money for doing nothing but going through the motion. His default position is he's so conservative which is an easy position to defend without having to expose himself by writing or arguing an opinion. Scalia had 2 votes on the court because Clarence Thomas was programmed to vote the same as Scalia. If this man does not get another puppet master he's going to be exposed for incompetence. Actually he must be terrified by what the future holds because at some point he will surely be exposed. If a Republican is elected POTUS I think he may step down from his position.