Move Over, Long Dong Silver…

…and let Gary Cooper take over!

Reader Marcus Barum sends along a link to this ABC News story about Jeffrey Toobin's new book on the Supreme Court, Under the Robes. Here's a snippet:

Thomas has such a libertarian view of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution that he prepares his new clerks by requiring them to watch the 1949 movie version of Ayn Rand's classic homage to individualism, "The Fountainhead."

Whole thing here.

reason interviewed Thomas back in 1987.

Edith Efron's great 1992 psycho-social profile of Thomas was a finalist for a National Magazine Award.

In 2005, lefty law prof and Supreme Court historian Mark Tushnet had good things to say about Thomas in reason.

IMDB page on The Fountainhead.

Wikipedia on Long Dong Silver.

Comments

[TrickyVic]

What a joke, will that book be in the comedy section?

[Warren]

If only Thomas was libertarian when it counted.

[madpad]

I almost snortedmy milk through my nose laughing at the notion that someone - anyone - thinks Clarence Thomas is libertarian anything.

As for Edith Efron's profile it is indeed interesting and worthy of every praise.

One omission, however is the simple fact that during his confirmation hearings, Thomas did not present very well.

In fact, in both statements and writings from SCOTUS, he is - and has always been - downright anemic.

I've never liked Thomas for number of reasons.His one redeeming attribute is that he's not as big a prick as Scalia.

Then again...maybe he is. Bigger even.

[SIV]

Why the hate for Thomas from the liberaltarians?
4 more Justices of similar views would be better than President Ron Paul.

[crimethink]

If only Thomas was libertarian when it counted.

What are you referring to? He voted our way on both Gonzales v Raich and Kelo v New London.

If you've got a problem, it should be with the craven liberal justices who cast their votes for statism in those cases.

[Franklin Harris]

I hope Thomas likes all of the rough sex in Rand's novels. It's the only way I see him voting the right way on the Alabama sex-toy ban, assuming the court even takes the case.

[J sub D]

He voted our way on both Gonzales v Raich and Kelo v New London.

You've got a damned good point there.

[Baylen]

Tushnet mocked libertarians in A Court Divided, an otherwise good book.

[joe]

Good thing he's just working to uphold the law instead of using his position for political activism.

[Zach]

what in Ayn Rands holy name does this have to do with Long Dong Silver?

[madpad]

An unusually wry and pointed bit of sarcasm from you, joe. Well done. Let's see more of that.

[Shelby]

Zach:

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_thomas#Anita_Hill_controversy

[Kwix]

What are you referring to? He voted our way on both Gonzales v Raich and Kelo v New London.
If you've got a problem, it should be with the craven liberal justices who cast their votes for statism in those cases.

You know Crimethink, you really crack me up sometimes. When you can explain to me just how Scalia is "liberal" then your point may stand.

That having been said, Thomas is about the most consistently "libertarian" one on the bench, especially in the time since Rehnquist left. I am not saying he's perfect but if Breyer and Scalia were more like Thomas, well, I wouldn't have so much to bitch about that's for sure.

[kwix]

Wow, franklinharris.com eh? I am afraid, very afraid to click that link.

[crimethink]

Kwix,

Sorry to spoil the joke, but I never said it was only craven liberal justices who voted for statism. IIRC, Scalia was on the side of the angels for Kelo, while supposedly compassionate liberal John Paul Stevens went 2 for 2 at bat for government power in those cases.

[Franklin Harris]

kwix,

Right now, franklinharris.com just goes to my MySpace page. It's harmless. Well, except that a local troupe of burlesque performers are in my top friends.

[madpad]

Ya know...all other issues aside, if I were a black man who was subjected to some of the things in the Anita Hill brouhaha (I don't like Thomas but I agree with a lot of folks that she had very little credibility especially in following to another job after her alleged harassment took place), I'd probably have a royal case of the ass for any cause championed by liberals too.

I'd probably goso far as to vote completely opposite of a liberal stance whenever I could.

In other words, if it weren't for the Anita Hill mess, he'd probably be a better justice.

[joe]

Anita Hill has been vindicated for years.

The author of The Real Anita Hill admits to making up his charges, and acknowledges that other women have come forward with similar reports.

The guy did it, he lied to the Senate, and he's sitting on the Supreme Court.

[crimethink]

joe, are you on the rag or something? Seriously.

[SIV]

Anita Hill has been vindicated for years.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!

The guy did it, he lied to the Senate, and he's sitting on the Supreme Court.

For the sake of argument I will accept this statement as truth so I can respond:

HE LIED ABOUT SEX, SO FUCKING WHAT?

Everybody lies about sex.

It isn't like HE LIED about WMDs or something important!

consistency joe

[John-David]

Anita Hill sez:

It was during that time, from 1981 to 1983, according to Hill's testimony, Thomas asked her out on numerous dates and continuously talked of pornography and lewd sexual acts.

"I felt that all of those things were relevant for the Senate to consider, just as they had considered many other ways he had handled himself, many other issues in terms of how he had done his job as the chair of the EEOC. And so I felt that it was very relevant and very important for their consideration," Hill says now.

Yeah, we all know how talking about pornography and lewd sexual acts, as well as asking women out on dates, is like totally disqualifying behavior when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. This is granting that everything she said was true.

If Hill's testimony has ever been collaborated, I've not heard about it, but would love to have a link to it.

[joe]

SIV,

People given irrevocable lifetime appointments need to be held to a high standard.

[joe]

John-David,

I'm not sure it the text is online, but I'd point you to the book Blinded By the Right by David Brock, the author of The Real Anita Hill.

[madpad]

Joe,

I'm not aware that Hill was "vindicated." The author of "The Real Anita Hill" wasn't sitting on congress when they decided her testimony could not be backed up.

If you got some sources you'd like to point me too, I have an open mind. As someone who's not a big fan of Thomas to begin with, I assure you I'll give it a fair read.

[joe]

madpad,

He provided the source material for the Republican Senators who rushed to Thomas's defense. They used the talking points Brock wrote for them.

He describes how it works in the book. Good book, too. Worth a read.

[crimethink]

So, joe, your evidence consists of the fact that a guy who wrote an anti-Anita Hill book changed his mind about it?

By that standard, Mitt Romney's various policy conversions prove that gray marriage is the #1 threat to our republic, abortion is murder, and gun control is an affront to liberty.

[madpad]

I'm familiar with Brock and his confession of smearing Anita Hill. And I doo enjoy Brock's stuff these day even if it's a little over the top much of the time.

But knowing that Anita Hill was the victim of a smear campaign does not and should not be seen as proof that her accusations were truthful.

In the end, I don't really care. The truth is, I don't like either one of them. I never thought Anita Hill's story added up and I don't like Thomas because I think he's a poor justice.

[joe]

crimethink,

Just read the book. This isn't about feelings, it's about facts, and Brock lays out the facts. Just read the book.

madpad,

Brock didn't just smear Hill - he also tried to refute her allegations. Read the book.

[crimethink]

I'm very skeptical, to say the least, about the ability of someone who had no link to the charges made by Anita Hill being able to make the slam dunk case that you seem to think he makes. And TBH I don't have time to waste on reading such a book.

And before you accuse me of being partisan, I'd say the same if it were a liberal justice or politician who had been accused. Though that doesn't protect me from getting labeled a "third party partisan", I suppose.

[joe]

Just read the book. Is that so terrifying, that you might be exposed to facts that contradict what you wish to be true?

Read. The. Book.

Or don't. I don't care.

[Mad Max]

joe,

I read both of the relevant Brock books - the smear job on Hill, and the "I am a liar" book. If he says he's a liar, I am inclined to believe him, but if he assures us that he has now reformed and only tells the truth, I'd like some corroboration.

Brock cancels out Brock. That leaves just the evidence.

I have no idea if Thomas talked dirty to Hill or not. Her story has some holes, but that doesn't make it false. Nor does that fact that the story corresponds to some anti-Thomas metanarrative make it true.

[R. Sammy]

If he says he's a liar, I am inclined to believe him

::Smoke pours out of ears::

[prolefeed]

People given irrevocable lifetime appointments need to be held to a high standard.

Whose high standards, joe? Yours? Please.

Oh, and I 1) don't think anyone should have irrevocable lifetime appointments to positions of power and 2) I don't think SCOTUS should be the supreme arbiter of the constitution.

[madpad]

Joe,

I'm sure Brock makes a great case and a great read.

My problems with Hill are primarily based on the fact that I don't buy someone as offended as she says she was following him to another job. She's either lying or she's a craven opportunist.

It's just a personal opinion of mine about her testimony. But I'll probably read Brock's book anyway,though it's likely to only reinforce the reasons why I don't like either Hill or Thomas.

[joe]

LOL, R. Sammy!

Somebody reboot Sammy.

[madpad]

Oh, and I 1) don't think anyone should have irrevocable lifetime appointments to positions of power and 2) I don't think SCOTUS should be the supreme arbiter of the constitution.

But isn't that what the constitution says?

[crimethink]

madpad,

Judicial review wasn't mentioned in the Constitution, it's just a custom.

[joe]

prolefeed,

Well, like it or not, those are the perks of the job.

And not necessarily mine. Just somewhere north of yours.

[John-David]

We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was an ex-NFL player named "Whizzer".

Whizzer dissented in the Miranda case, by the way, which is far more egregious than anything Justice Thomas has done, or will ever do.

[madpad]

United States Constitution - Article III):

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,...The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution?

Sounds like the constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme arbiter of the constitution" to me.

As for the lifetime appointment, it's not irrevocable. Justices can be impeached or removed by conviction.

[crimethink]

Not to get all legalistic again, but having the power to decide all cases arising under the Constitution is not equivalent to being the supreme arbiter of the Constitution itself.

Judicial review originated with Marbury v Madison nearly two decades after the Constitution was ratified. Even then, it wasn't at all clear that the SCOTUS had the final say over Constitutional issues; quite a few times in the 1800s, the other branches simply ignored constitutional rulings of the Court.

[SIV]

I am somewhat puzzled by the blanket hostility of some "libertarians" to conservative judges. Judicial philosophy is an area in which conservative and libertarian views largely overlap.

Weigel snarked this in his debate blogging:

Republican voters want you to give David Souter a blanket party and replace him with Ann Coulter

Could anyone explain why this substitution, from a libertarian perspective, wouldn't be a total win.

[crimethink]

Ann Coulter's dissents would make for a nice change of pace, I guess. I can see it already. "The eight fags in the majority decided blah blah, but I dissent. Not respectfully either because I don't respect anti-American traitors..."

[SIV]

crimethink,

She is a Constitutional lawyer. I think she could curb her hyperbole for a dream job that didn't encourage book sales and personal appearance fees as the measure of success.

Her expressed judicial philosophy is one of radical "originalism".

[madpad]

You want to read that over again, crimethink?

Because having the power to decide all cases arising under the Constitution pretty much IS equivalent to being the supreme arbiter of the Constitution.

Marbury v Madison merely accords the precedent with which to interpret Article III as being just that. And yes, some branches have ignored the court at times. Lot harder to do that these days.

I am somewhat puzzled by the blanket hostility of some "libertarians" to conservative judges.

I think the problem for libertarians comes when declared conservative justices do things like decide to put aside First Amendment protections for citizens, as Thomas and Scalia recently did.

In general,there's deep suspicion by many libertarians of "Conservatives" since many of them aren't true conservatives.

Simply put, if the declared conservative uses the phrase "conservative values" at any time, they are not to be trusted.

[Mad Max]

Madame Justice Couter, for the Court:

"The appellants are a bunch of pot-smoking hippies who persistently vote Democratic. They come before this court to claim that federal regulation of marijuana violates the Tenth Amendment. This from the same party that wants to federalize everything. They don't care about federalism, and they are remanded to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for indefinite detention. They have no right to complain about *that,* either, because their hero FDR interned the Japanese Americans in a classic liberal war crime."

"The next appellant is a salt-of-the earth Republican whom some Democratic prosecutor is trying to send to prison for killing his wife. A least he *has* a wife, not a same-sex partner like Barney Frank. The appellant is released from prison so that he can continue his loyal service to the Republican party and the United States of Amerca."

[madpad]

Her expressed judicial philosophy is one of radical "originalism".

That's pretty much a typical oxymoronic Coulterism...which means it's full of crap and has no meaning that can be effectively applied in the real world.

[madpad]

She is a Constitutional lawyer.

Being a 'Constitutional Lawyer' is like being a 'Medical Doctor'

I think she could curb her hyperbole for a dream job that didn't encourage book sales and personal appearance fees as the measure of success.

Your expecting an awful lot of Ms. Coulter...I don't think she can handle that kind of pressure.

[Sylson of Samos]

For those interested in the issue of judicial review I suggest Larry Kramer's excellent "The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review."

Sounds like the constitution says the Supreme Court is the "supreme arbiter of the constitution" to me.

One of the big snags in that notion is of course the idea that the Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts (except in some limited circumstances). It could assign that jurisdiction to the state courts (as it did for much of American history) in other words.

crimethink,

Judicial review, as a concept where the courts review the actions of the other bodies of government, existed prior to Marbury (just how much prior to it is of some debate). The issue not so much whether the courts have the authority to review actions of the other bodies of government (that is one sort of judicial review) but whether it is the most superior arbiter of such. Check out Kramer's book for more on such.

[madpad]

the Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts

It can also expand it. And congress can't take away the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction...which pretty much makes it the final word on constitutional matters, doesn't it?

As for the book plug, I checked it out on Amazon.com After reading the Newt Gingrich review I got a little leery.

All the yammering about "appointed lawyers" pretty much falls flat when one is confronted by the fact that over 95% of the federal attorneys and judges now serving were appointed by Republican presidents (Clinton only got a handful of appointments in).

Still, worth considering. Thanks Sylson.

[TJIT]

The folks slagging Thomas should take a look at this link.

Search and Seizure

His dissent in Edmonds is also one more example of how Clarence Thomas is the biggest friend of liberty on the bench, and a far more thoughtful and sophisticated jurist than his leftist critics give him credit for.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

The guy did it, he lied to the Senate, and he's sitting on the Supreme Court.

Thank god he's not the fargin' president. [wipes a sweaty brow as the women fawn]

[thoreau]

joe-

The problem with David Brock is the same as the problem with anybody who says "I was working as a hatchetman, and now I'm here to tell you how awful my previous employers were."

I'm not here to argue for or against any stance in regard to Clarence Thomas, but simply to argue that David Brock is not to be trusted.

[pgt]

Bajakajian a 5-4 decision in 1998, authored by Clarence Thomas.

Jacobson another 5-4 decision with Thomas in the majority, this one was from his first year on the court.

And on this website we know about Kelo v New London, and Gonzales v Raich.

Even with my very limited familiarity with Supreme Court cases I know that madpad you should be ashamed of yourself.

David Brock was a contemptible lying scumbag fourteen years ago, and he is still a contemptible lying scumbag after having switched sides.

[madpad]

Even with my very limited familiarity with Supreme Court cases I know that madpad you should be ashamed of yourself.

What, pray tell, did I do now?

I never said Brock wasn't a liar...merely that he was entertaining.

[crimethink]

madpad, I think pgt was saying you should be ashamed of your dissing of Clarence Thomas.

[Graphite]

Wow, this many posts into a thread about Ayn Rand and still no jokes about Clarence Thomas taking up smoking or being stuck in high school? I mean, I know we already got the rough sex mention out of the way but COME ON PEOPLE, there's distancing to be done!

[Graphite]

I highly encourage checking out the Wikipedia article on Long Dong Silver. "...famed for the size of his penis (reputedly 18 inches),[citation needed]."

[J sub D]

For the sake of argument I will accept this statement as truth so I can respond:

HE LIED ABOUT SEX, SO FUCKING WHAT?

Everybody lies about sex.

It isn't like HE LIED about WMDs or something important!

consistency joe

SIV, partisans, both republicrats and demlicans have one set of rules for their own party and a different, stricter, set for the other side of the aisle. We know Ted Kennedy is guilty of manslaughter. We know Ted Stevens is for sale to the highest bidder. Try to get somebody from their respective parties to admit it.

[madpad]

madpad, I think pgt was saying you should be ashamed of your dissing of Clarence Thomas.

Oh...his post made it seem like a more substantive criticism. Ironic, though, as my criticism has been far tamer than joe's defense of both Brock and Hill.

And I haven't defamed Thomas's character...I've merely said I think he's a poor justice.

[pgt]

Decisive votes in Jacobson and Bajakajian on the pro-liberty side, voting with "liberals". Dissents in Raich and Kelo, voting with "conservatives". You might want a better Justice, but none are available on the present SCOTUS, or in the recent past.

[madpad]

You might want a better Justice,

Just because I can't stand Bush doesn't mean I wanted Kerry instead.

Lack of suitable (purely a matter of opinion) alternatives doesn't make Thomas a good justice.

[maxipad]

Look at Adam Smith....lousy economist.

Friedrich Hayek, as a political philosopher definitely sub par, as an economist? Well he didn't have a prestigous NYTS gig like Krugman does so that says it all.

John Locke? Why is that guy even relevant I mean it is the 21st Century.He was a poor philosopher even in his day.

[crimethink]

madpad,

So I take it you don't like ANY of the justices? I mean, I'd love to have 9 clones of Ron Paul on the bench, but let's be practical about this. What decisions/opinions of Thomas are you so pissed about?

[madpad]

What makes you think that I'm 'pissed' about Thomas, crimethink? I just don't find him to be a great justice is all.

He writes very little and speaks even less, for starters. I'm also usually unimpressed by proclaimed 'originalist' as this is often little more than a political code word anymore and means almost nothing in actual practice. And lastly, as a 'libertarian' justice he is way inconsistent.

To see how 'originalist he is check out Morse v. Frederick, the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. While he's usually pro-free speech, his assertion that students have no free speech rights is pretty out there.

He get props from me for being a federalist and finding the commerce clause assertions behind the anti-marijuana crowd fishy. But then he goes and sides with the federal government's right to raid marijuana clubs. So much for consistency.

His interpretation of the 4th amendment is all over the map and (but for some notable exceptions as with Kyllo v. United States and Indianapolis v. Edmond ) he usually sides with law enforcement.

And he's so falling over himself for executive power, his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was almost sycophantic.

I could go on...and you'll probably pick apart all of my opinions now that I've given some specifics.

I just don't dig the guy...let's move on shall we.

[madpad]

More on Thomas's inconsistency ala Morse v. Frederick. In 2000, Thomas had no problem dessenting on a school prayer case, Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.

The court reviewed whether a student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the court upheld that it did, Thomas (and Scalia and Rhenquist...big surprise there) dissented.

So, when it comes to saying a prayer, student DO have the right to free speech? What a hypocrite.

His judicial philosophy is based less on deep thought about serious issues and more on being a conservative toady.

[Sylson of Samos]

madpad,

And congress can't take away the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction...

How do you interpret this language?

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

[madpad]

Hmmm...do you predict a situation where the congress will eliminate ALL of the Supreme Court's appellate authority?

Point of fact, of course, you nailed me as I should have read deeper. Oh well...win some, lose some.

[dhex]

Her expressed judicial philosophy is one of radical "originalism".

is originalism code for "jello shots" or something?

[maxipad]

von Mises? He couldn't even compute sales tax, much less read a mortgage table.

John Stuart Mill? From the lowest tier of philosophers.

Thomas Jefferson? Can you think of a more boring "founding document" than his lame Declaration?

Milton Friedman? Nobel Prize in Economics?
A Fourth Place ribbon in the Pinewood Derby
would have been a gratuitous reward for his "contributions" to Economics and Liberty.

[maxipad]

Well we could have a worse Supreme Court Justice than Clarence Thomas.The wingnuts like this Janice Rogers Brown. She isn't fit to cook me pancakes much less hear a Supreme Court Case.

[Ray G]

Everytime I meet a new person that shows a little spark of intelligence I push Atlas Shrugged on them.

Just my little way of proselytizing.

[TJIT]

Madpad,

You might like Thomas but that does not change the fact that he is the most consistent, freedom friendly judge on the court.

[madpad]

TJIT,

It's obvious you've ignored everything I've written and are incapable of intelligently commenting on it using facts. You're in the same ilk as those folks who so righteously declared Rumsfeld "the best secretary of defense we've ever had."

Your argument (or lack there of) appears to be solely based out of perception, emotion and what someone else said rather than anything you came up with on your own by gathering evidence and actually reading about his accomplishments.

Come back when you can put forth a substantive case.

[dhex]

Everytime I meet a new person that shows a little spark of intelligence I push Atlas Shrugged on them.

jehovah's witnesses: the unknown ideal.

[Stevo Darkly]

"Who has put a pubic hair on John Galt?"

[madpad]

Everytime I meet a new person that shows a little spark of intelligence I push Atlas Shrugged on them...

..immediately bringing to an end what could have been a delightful relationship.

[TJIT]

Madpad,

We don't have a lot of freedom respecting judges on the court. I mean honestly in the past few years when has the court evervoted to limit expansion of government power?

What I interesting is that Thomas gets so much hostility when he has had at least a few examples of supporting legal ideas that will give more respect to individuals and increase freedom.

Unlike scalia who changes votes based on which side of an issue is more helpful to expanding drug war powers. And unlike the members of the "liberal" block who have been wrong on Kelo, and Raich and done little to increase personal liberty.

But I'm willing to be persuaded.

Maybe you can show me how the other justices are better then Thomas and how their legal framework is more likely to increase individual freedom.

[madpad]

Alright TJIT, I'll go with you on one point...in terms of liberty issues, he's marginally better than the other current sitting justices.

I say marginally because he's voted with Scalia 91% of the time. I also say marginally because (as I've already pointed out) he has some serious inconsistencies on 1st and 4th amendment applications.

But friendliness to liberty is only one aspect of a justice's contribution to constitutionality. I still don't like the motherfucker.

[AC]

Madpad,

The fact you overlook in both Santa Fe and Frederick is that Thomas supported the school districts' positions. His position is that students do not have free speech rights, so the school district has nearly unlimited latitude to make rules (such as allowing religious speech in Santa Fe or barring some speech in Frederick). It's not a position I agree with or that is particularly liberty-friendly, but it is consistent.

As to some other 1st amendment inconsistencies, I think the clarifying issue is federalism. Generally, he's been very strict with federal speech restrictions (whether hate-based, campaign finance, or commercial speech), but the states get a lighter hand. Again, not perfectly liberty-friendly, but certainly better than the others and others that have retired in the last 20 years.

It's unfortunate that for every Kelo, Raich, or Kyllo, there is a Hudson, Hamdi, or Elk Grove, but that's how it goes.

[madpad]

AC (et al), sure...that's how it goes...in a perfect universe and all. I get that and I'm fine with it. Listen we can split hairs till doomsday and too often these threads devolve into just that.

I'm not pissed, I'm not filled with hate for Thomas and I don't carry around some militant anti- or pro- list of why I feel certain ways about certain political folks.

I've admitted (grudgingly) that Thomas is more liberty-friendly than his confreres. Now, can't I just not like the guy?

[Diversity Training]

Now, can't I just not like the guy?

Maybe you don't like Black people?

[TrickyVic]

"""You might like Thomas but that does not change the fact that he is the most consistent, freedom friendly judge on the court."""

Freedom to let the police do pretty much anything they want.