Perhaps his rather unpleasant experience in the public eye during his 1991 confirmation hearings has something to do with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ taciturnity, but he recently gave a roomful of high school students a rare peek at his more private side, discussing what he does when he’s blue and whether Americans feel too entitled to their rights.
The New York Times:
“Sometimes, when I get a little down,” Justice Thomas said wearily, he goes online. “I look up wonderful speeches, like speeches by Douglas MacArthur, to hear him give without a note that speech at West Point — ‘duty, honor, country.’ How can you not hear those words and not feel strongly about what we have?”
He continued: “Or how can you not reminisce about a childhood where you began each day with the Pledge of Allegiance as little kids lined up in the schoolyard and then marched in two by two with a flag and a crucifix in each classroom?”
A favorite movie can be a comfort, too.
“I have on many occasions or a number of occasions when things were becoming particularly routine gone down to my basement to watch ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ ” he said. “I can’t tell you why that particular movie, except we have it and it’s about something important in our lives — World War II.”
The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
“Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
Read more
Marching in Chicago: Resisting Rahm Emanuel’s Neoliberal Savagery
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By Inherit The Wind, April 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment
Folktruther, April 13 at 5:20 pm #
What a boob. Hell, Inherit is smarter than this.
******************************************
Yeah, so’s my dog, and, even more incredibly, so is FT.
(even though he is hung up on boobs—but always in single units….?????)
Report thisBy TheRealFish, April 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment
No wonder he’s on the Supreme Court—he knows about sections of the Constitution that ordinary people like myself (who has read the whole darned thing) obviously failed to see or understand.
“Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?” asketh this Supreme majesty.
Now, where does one find those written in by our framers? I really want to know—and also know how those somehow trump the Bill of Rights that I was able to find and read.
Report thisBy Ed Harges, April 13, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment
Look at these bizarre glimpses into his near-comatose private “life”. When asked what he does to entertain himself or relax in his spare time, he comes up with these pitiable vignettes:
“I have on many occasions or a number of occasions when things were becoming particularly routine gone down to my basement to watch ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ ” he said. “I can’t tell you why that particular movie, except we have it and it’s about something important in our lives — World War II.”....
“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned.”
God, what a pathetic, depressive person! No wonder he never says anything on the court!
Report thisBy Ed Harges, April 13, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
re: By dr wu, April 13 at 6:06 pm:
Dear Dr. Wu: What? Is that true? Does Ginsburg frequently side with Scalia and Thomas? Are you sure about that?
I haven’t read of any such thing. Please provide a link to a source for this, if you’d be so kind.
Thanks!
Report thisBy dr wu, April 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
This tortured man would have been better off staying at the EEOC, watching porn movies and placing pubic hairs on Anita Hill’s coke can. He is simply out of place on the Supreme Court. He knows nothing and he says nothing. Another basket case is Justice R. B. Ginbsurg—totally unhelpful in Bush vs. Gore (2000) and in constant fear of the bully Antonin Scalia. As it turns out, Scalia has three votes on the court—his, Clarence Thomas and Ginsburg.
Report thisBy NYCartist, April 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment
I was still watching tv way back when, and I saw the confirmation hearings of Mr. Thomas. We know what things he watched in his spare time. For me, it took the aura out of the Supreme Court, although various court decisions had done that,too. Before he died, Thurgood Marshall remarked that he was extremely upset that he had retired due to his health and was replaced by Mr. Thomas, whose decisions were so disappointing to Mr. Marshall (and the rest of us who want justice for all).
Report thisBy Folktruther, April 13, 2009 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment
What a boob. Hell, Inherit is smarter than this.
Report thisBy skulz fontaine, April 13, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
“Pledge of allegiance, little kids lined up two by two, marching with a flag and a crucifix…”? What freaking fascist planet is Uncle Thomas dreaming about? Uncle Thomas is EXACTLY what is wrong with the Supremes. Well, and Slash Scalia.
Report thisStarched brown shirts. Black high polish jackboots. Torquemada, Adolf Eichmann, and Rex ‘the Rendition’ Reagan are just a few of Uncle Thomas’s favorite Amerikan things.
America would do well to put term limits on those Supreme Court nominations. Sieg Heil baby, sieg heil.
By Ed Harges, April 13, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
God he is so weird and incoherent.
He says we need a “bill of responsibilities” in addition to (or maybe instead of?) a bill of rights.
Well, duh, a bill of rights is a bill of responsibilities: government responsibilities.
You can restate any “right” as a responsibility - it’s two sides of a coin.
For example, take the fourth amendment, forbidding search and seizure without probable cause. Another way of putting it is:
“It is the responsibility of the government officers, before they invade a citizen’s privacy, to give a good legal reason that it has probable cause, submit it to a court of law, and get a warrant. If the court doesn’t buy their justifications, they don’t get the warrant, and they don’t get to search or seize anything.”
See, what Mr. Thomas doesn’t like is that our legal rights impose responsibilities on him and anyone else who gets a government paycheck. Mr. Thomas thinks government is forced to be too responsible. It’s “hard work”, as his lazy friend Dubya complains. A dictatorship would be so much easier.
You’d think a “conservative” would not object to constraining the government by spelling out its responsibilities.
Report this