Opinion: Justice Thomas' 20 Years on Bench - Still Unqualified After All These Years

Monday, October 24, 2011 - 01:00 PM

Today is the anniversary of the first week Clarence Thomas ascended to the United States Supreme Court. He was sworn in on Monday, October 23, 1991, following a hotly contested nomination process which centered not on Thomas’ qualifications but on allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Last term, Thomas marked another anniversary: Five years of silence from the bench - not a single question posed to counsel, in 1,825 days. Also last term, a former girlfriend emerged, allegedly to confirm Anita Hill's story, from all those years before; and a watchdog group filed a disbarment complaint against Thomas, claiming improper financial disclosure.

This fall, before the current term could even begin, twenty House Democrats asked for a federal investigation into the disclosure matter, charging that Thomas may have violated the court's ethics rules. And, Jeffrey Toobin, of The New Yorker, also sounded the alarm with, “Partners: Will Clarence and Virginia Thomas Succeed in Killing Obama’s Health-Care Plan?”

The New Yorker piece was certainly prescient. It ran on August 25; and just this month, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to hear a major case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development, which came unexpectedly soon, makes it all but certain that the Court will agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June – right in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Toobin is a long-time student of the Supremes. When he speaks, we should listen. And he is right to scold the Left for what has been, from the start, a simplistic assessment of Thomas as a do-nothing, write-nothing, say-nothing lackey of archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Toobin suggests that Thomas may turn out to be the sleeper justice, an ultra-conservative thinker who threatens to undermine any interpretation of the Constitution as a living, breathing, evolving document, through stealth, behind-the-scenes leadership.

If Toobin is right in his assessment, “[t]he implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society.”

I have known Jeffrey Toobin for years, respect him immensely, and almost always agree with him. In this latest assessment of the court, I agree with my old friend, in part; there is a fundamental failure, to answer a bottom-line question: Is Clarence Thomas an intellectual to be reckoned with, on the court, and off? That is the question from which we veered, two decades ago, so distracted were we by what came to be known as, The Anita Hill Question. By the time we reawakened to the underlying inquiry – the judge’s qualifications - the point was moot; Thomas was, and will be a justice - for life.

My feeling at the time of his nomination - before Anita Hill surfaced - was that Clarence Thomas was not qualified for the post, not because of anything Hill alleged, but because Thomas had not yet proven himself a jurisprudential thinker of the caliber required for service on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thomas was a black man in America, however; and Americans were afraid to call it as we saw it. Within the African-American community, we were divided over whether to claim him as one of our own. Our division arose from color affinity, pride and the fear of losing our coveted seat on the nation’s highest court.

Meanwhile, the rest of America, especially the white men on the Senate Judiciary Committee, were in an even less tenable position -- how to call into question the qualifications of an African-American nominee, yet not appear racist in doing so.

It was a question committee members would never have to answer, however. Suddenly (and mercifully for the senators), the proceedings were sidelined by Hill’s allegations that the nominee had made unsolicited sexual comments while she was working for him as a young lawyer, first at the Department of Education and later the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at (of all places).

Instead of a rigorous review of the nominee's intellectual preparedness, now we were talking about a subject we could all get our minds around: Sex. The Anita Hill Question distracted the Judiciary Committee and the public from the fundamental issue at hand - whether Clarence Thomas was qualified for the job. (Hill, by the way, has a new book out this month, entitled “Reimagining Equality,” and had timed her book tour to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the hearings.)

Political pundits who continue to focus on Thomas’s lack of questioning prowess, activists who file disbarment petitions about Clarence and Virginia Thomas’ financial disclosure forms, and ex-girlfriends who rehash the old sexual harassment complaint that failed to undermine his credibility the first time around, all continue to miss the critical point: The nature and quality of the justice’s jurisprudence.

By any account, his back-story is impressive. The first President Bush nominated then Judge Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall. Thomas is only the second African-American ever to serve on the court. He was born in 1948 in rural Georgia and overcame extreme racism, poverty and myriad other obstacles to be educated at Holy CrossCollege and Yale Law School.

In 1974, he was appointed an assistant attorney general in his home state. He later practiced law and served as a legislative aide to Missouri Senator John Danforth. In 1981, President Reagan appointed him assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education and in 1982 moved Thomas over to chairman of the EEOC where he served until President H. W. Bush nominated him for a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is where the question of qualification comes in, however. Thomas had served on the D.C. Circuit for only one year and four months, when Bush cherry-picked him to fillMarshall's seat. Was Thomas too green?

The Senate Judiciary Committee should have been drilling down on that very question when someone leaked the FBI interview with Anita Hill. Instead of questions about Thomas's intellectual readiness to serve, the conversation shifted to the bizarre public dialogue about pubic hair on coke cans, “Long Dong Silver” and high-tech lynching. The hearing became about race, sexual harassment and feminism – all critically important issues but not the primary issue in contention.

Of course, intellectual distinction is only one criterion for judicial appointments; the other, unfortunately, has become legal orthodoxy. Justice Thomas is, is a strict constructionist when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as written. Once the judge has a clear meaning of the text, no further interpretation is required. Judges like Thomas avoid drawing inferences and focus only on the text of the Constitution itself.

It is a conservative view because it disallows for the further reading of rights and liberties into the Constitution where they are not expressly drawn there. That Thomas clings staunchly to this approach is enough to justify his place on the court for most conservatives.

The real test of Thomas’s effectiveness as a jurist, however, must be made after considering his opinions – his use of precedent, understanding of the Constitution and how often he has been given the lead in opinion for the majority. Anything else is just more of the same old character assassination.

While others may prefer to focus on the silence of the judge from the bench, the more salient point is the silence of his pen. Like the late Chief Justice Rehnquist before him, Chief Justice Roberts rarely assigns majority opinions to Thomas. Whether this is because of Thomas' lack of intellectual heft, or because of his staunchly conservative views, the result is the same: Thomas does not write for the majority very often because he cannot persuade a majority of justices to join him.

Toobin and others suggest that, with more experience and with Roberts as Chief, “the Court will start to come to Thomas – that Thomas’ views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case.” Only time will tell.

My own view is that the sheer extremity of Justice Thomas’ views continues to hamper his ability to garner a majority for his opinions. This renders him an ineffective justice. A great legacy on the nation’s highest Court requires a very unique blend of superior intellect and judicial temperament, one that only a few Americans in history have mastered. From the start, Clarence Thomas has demonstrated that he possesses neither.

Jami Floyd is the Managing Editor of The Global Game World Report. She is an attorney and award winning legal journalist and has covered the Supreme Court for ABC News and Court TV, as well as the nomination and confirmation process. During her political work for the Clinton administration in Washington DC, she had the good fortune to become acquainted with most of the sitting and retired Supreme Court justices, but has never had the pleasure of meeting Justice Thomas.


More in:

Comments [5]

David from DC

Tasteless hit piece, and not even worthy of further comment.

Jan. 15 2013 03:56 PM

This is what's to be expected from leftwing extremists such as Jami Floyd.

She couldn't give one example of a case opinion that Thomas wrote on that is in extremis , but she calls him an extremist . The ad hominem attacks never stop --- liberals' hatred for black conservatives will never change

Jan. 14 2013 07:27 PM
Jack Jackson from Central New Jersey

Come off it, Jaybuck, Clarence Thomas's nomination was nothing more than the replacement of 'their black' for 'our black'. His reliance on 'natural law' is antiquated and unsubstantial.
To Harrison, The 18th Amendment (banning alcohol) was passed by 2/3 of Congress and by 3/4 of the state legislatures and as such is unarguably constitutional. That the Constitution could be amended in such a way as to be flouted so universally says more about us than it does about our founding document.
Just wait till SCOTUS decides that the 2nd Amendments 'keep and bear arms' really means 'keep AND BEAR' arms...

Oct. 30 2011 05:55 PM
Harrison Bergeron from NYC


Your critism of Justice Thomas seems to be around two points: his intellect and his strict adherence to the words of the Constituion as written.

1. Regarding his intellect, you cite: "... not a single question posed to counsel, in 1,825 days".

Possibly, he has read the briefs, listened to the arguments, and that is enough for him. The court is not a TV reality show where the actors must play up to the character part they are cast in so as to entertain us. Of course we cannot really know Justice Thomas's intellect unless we can get physically close to the court and monitor him over a period of time, without the filter of the entertainment industry, (a.k.a. "news media").

Regarding his rarely writing the majority opinion: it is likely that his views are far enough to the conservative end of the spectrum, that his writing may seem polarizing. But I do not see this particularly as a measure of degree of intellect.

2. Regarding his strict adherence to the words of the Constituion: "... threatens to undermine any interpretation of the Constitution as a living, breathing, evolving document, ..." -- I think we've got to be carefull about the Constitution "evolving".

Starting with the words from another famous document: "... all men are created equal"; and understanding that the words were written by wealthy, white, land owning, slave owning men; I'm okay with expanding the interpretation of "men" to be "all people". But I am leary of much more "evolving" than that.

Therefore if we scratch Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 (accomodating slavery) by Amendment XIII (prohibiting slavery) -- this is good, because it is making things more fair for more of the people. Likewise Amendments XV (Black vote) and XIX (women's vote).

On the other hand, Amendment XVIII (banning alcoholic consumption) had no place in the Constitution. Nor do calls for a flag burning amendment. These kinds of things reflect current popular fads and muddy up the long term historical importance of the document.

Things often get even more emotional, more political and more accomodating of current popular fads; for example in matters such as abortion, execution of Americans overseas without due process, and the president calling up the military without congressional authorization.

The justices are human beings and are subject to the same current popular pressures as are the legislators. The legislators may sway to current popular opinion in order to be re-elected. But the supreme court justices must take a longer term view: not merely to the next election but for the life of the Republic. I suspect that a farily strict interpretation of the Constitution better serves that function.


Oct. 26 2011 03:30 PM
Jaybuck from Illinois

The Democratic party would do almost anything to get Thomas removed. In doing this would be creating the Obama ideal left wing supreme court. What is there left that is not contaminated by Chicago thuggery?

Oct. 25 2011 09:48 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About It's A Free Blog

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at



Supported by