by Scoobie Davis
Clarence-T Gets Some Deserved Criticism
In his article on today's National Review Online, John A. Foster-Bey writes, "October 15, 2001 marked the ten-year anniversary of the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. While the hearings should have been used as an opportunity for the nation to hear and assess the legal philosophy and judicial perspectives of the second black nominee to the Supreme Court, liberal opponents to his confirmation chose instead to attack his character and private life rather than debate his ideas."
Here are the problems with this assessment:
1. Thomas doesn't have a meaningful "legal philosophy and judicial perspectives" to hear or assess. Thomas was a mediocre law student at best. Although Thomas' law school transcript is not available, his grade in Thomas I. Emerson's first year course on politics and civil rights was a 69. [Quick note: 69 was the lowest score Al Gore had when he was a law student. The right has falsely accused Gore of flunking out of law school. Rather, Gore dropped out to win election to Congress (the same year, George W. Bush's most notable activity was to drink like a fish and drive around his friends and family).] The American Bar Association gave Thomas the low rating of simply "qualified" (with a minority rating him "unqualified")--the lowest rating of a modern nominee. It's kind of pathetic when a guy is rated lower than the infamous G. Harold Carswell (remember Senator Roman Hruska's endorsement of Carswell: "Even if he is mediocre there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"). Since perjuring himself in order to get on the high court, Thomas has been a Scalia clone and was part of the 2000 coup.
2. The left isn't attacking his character: Thomas lacks character. The evidence is overwhelming that Thomas lied before the Judiciary Committee--especially since David Brock came clean about what was going on behind the scenes. His private life has become relevant only because he lied about it under oath. Why should the right care about Clarence-T's private life when he doesn't extend the same consideration to others? David Brock provided strong evidence that Thomas gave damaging personal information about a former co-worker who had witnessed his predilection for pornography. I agree with Foster-Bey that calling someone an Uncle Tom is name-calling, but this is one Thomas who knows what side his bread is buttered on.