« This is SERIOUS professionalism | Main | Chaska, Minn. Chief of Police signs on with Mayors »
NY Times on Justice Thomas
Not to say it's a tiny bit slanted, but the title tells you all you need to know: "The Next Big Thing in Law? The Harsh Jurisprudence of Justice Thomas".
Although Thomas himself has explained his silence in oral arguments (he grew up speaking Gullah, and the transition made him shy about speaking) the article says that people speculate that it's because "he is afraid that if he speaks he will reveal his ignorance about the case; he is so ideologically driven that he invariably comes with his mind made up; or he has contempt for the process."
He "regularly rules for the powerful over the weak, and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering." "He appears poised in the next few weeks to achieve his longstanding goal: dismantling the integrationist vision of his predecessor Thurgood Marshall."
He started out rather liberal, but then sold out: "But as he accepted jobs from Republicans eager to hire a conservative black lawyer, he shifted rightward." He is always "quick to reach a harsh result."
[via Prof. Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy]
· media
4 Comments | Leave a comment
LONG LIVE U.S.S.C. Justice Clarence Thomas.
I've read a number of dissents authored by Thomas, and it seems to me that he is the Justice most in touch with the original meaning of the Constitution - even moreso than Scalia. It was a good day when he was confirmed.
Wah wah! Any justice who doesn't keep up with what the "living Constitution" says, as provided by the Slimes' editorial page that morning, is a "heartless radical".
Too bad Stephens, or, better yet, Souter, couldn't have had an aneurysm about a year ago, then we really could have given the Times something to cry about!
Geez, why do you even torture yourself by reading the New York Slimes? All The News That's Printed to Fit.
It's just sick how the media expect judges to rule for "the little guy" or in favor of people who are "suffering", regardless of what the actual law or Constitution says. They can't seem to get the point that making policy decisions is the job of the legislature, and the judiciary's job is to interpet the law as written, not to re-write the law into some vision of what society (or the judge) wants it to be.
Some recommended (better) reading:
I just finished "Scalia Dissents" - enjoyable all the way through. Scalia's opinions are always a hoot to read.
I'm in the middle of "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork. He pulls no punches in this one - as if he ever does in any of his books.