Supreme Court

Another Day, Another Bogus New York Times Attack on Clarence Thomas

The Gray Lady misleads its readers about the conservative Supreme Court justice.

|

Credit: C-SPAN

Last week The New York Times published a story with the sensational headline "Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice of Few Words, Some Not His Own." Some not his own? Was the Times accusing Thomas of plagiarism? It sure seemed like it was. Here's how the piece began:

Justice Clarence Thomas has not asked a question from the Supreme Court bench since 2006. His majority opinions tend to be brisk, efficient and dutiful.

Now, studies using linguistic software have discovered another Thomas trait: Those opinions contain language from briefs submitted to the court at unusually high rates.

The piece goes on to describe Thomas' opinions as "rely[ing] heavily on the words of others" and employing "borrowed language." In fact, the Times spends a full 14 paragraphs painting Thomas as a sort of lone incompetent (or worse) unable or unwilling to write his own opinions without outside help.

But then we reach paragraph 15, which reads as follows:

Over the years, the average rate of nearly identical language between a party's brief and the majority opinion was 9.6 percent. Justice Thomas's rate was 11.3 percent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's was 11 percent, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 10.5 percent.

In other words, if you stick around long enough to read the fine print, you discover that the Times has been misleading you all along. Thomas has done nothing unusual. His writing conforms to standard practices among the justices.

Needless to say, this deceptive story has come in for some well-deserved criticism. The most trenchant of which came from George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr, a former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had this to say about the Times' misdeeds:

The implication is that Justice Thomas is not doing his job. Not only does he not ask questions, he doesn't even think for himself.

For the New York Times audience, it's the kind of ideological catnip that is likely to make a lasting impression. No wonder it has been a main link on the Times homepage for most of the last day.

If you look at the data, though, they don't support the conclusion that Justice Thomas is an outlier….

Yes, Thomas has the highest shared language percentage. But it's bizarre to say that his numbers are "unusually high," that Thomas "relies heavily" on outside language or that "many" of his words are "not his own." All of the Justices share language from the briefs at roughly similar rates: about 7 to 11 words out of 100. And the difference between Thomas and Sotomayor is a rounding error. It's only 2.5 words out of 1,000. In a typical majority opinion, that's probably the difference between including a short parenthetical quote from a precedent and leaving it out.

Today, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan issued a response to the criticism leveled by Kerr and others. She did her best to defend the piece, but facts are facts, and Sullivan was ultimately forced to concede that "the overall impression it left may well have overstated the case." No kidding.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The New York Times has a long history of publishing misleading negative items about Justice Thomas. For example, early in Thomas' tenure on the Court, the Times famously described Justice Antonin Scalia as Thomas' "apparent mentor," a cheap shot designed to portray Thomas as an intellectual lightweight. Yet as we now know, Thomas has been the one influencing Scalia—an influence that Scalia himself has repeatedly acknowledged. Yet the demonstrably false notion of Thomas as Scalia's "sidekick" continues to persist in many quarters of the American left.

I realize that Clarence Thomas' legal views are unpopular among many of the reporters and editors who work at The New York Times. But their bias against him is no excuse for this sort of specious journalism.

Related: A History Lesson From Clarence Thomas: Correcting a liberal smear about the conservative Supreme Court justice

NEXT: Life Without Parole for a First-Time, Nonviolent Drug Offender

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So racist, NYT.

    Next thing, they’ll be calling him the affirmative action justice who has to plagiarize because hes too stoopid to be a real judge.

    1. ^^ this

      1. THEY HAVEN’T ALREADY?!?!?

        1. iThey have. Often. They’ve couched it in Libealspeak, but everybody with the commonsense of a baby duck (and LOTS of Liberal Clerisarchs without) knows perfectly well what they meant. And a lot of Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive academics read it with approval and almost sexual pleasure, and then turned around and wrote scornful essays about the way the old European Aristocracy would commission fawning ‘scholarship’ justifying their continued misrule, and condemning more representative States, and then actually believe it.

          LIRP, rope, tree. Some assembly desperately needed. No grease necessary.

          1. wut?

    2. It’s not racist because Thomas isn’t a real black.

      1. Yes, he’s not authentically black, like Obama is. I have heard this actual argument made in seriousness.

        1. Yeah, that is just too funny. Obama, raised entirely by his white family and not descended from any African-American slaves is a mroe authentic black buy than the guy who grew up speaking Gullah in a poor, southern, black town.

      2. He’s a conservative black who took the liberal black spot on the court and thus ruined it for everybody. The Left will never forgive him for that.

    3. Didn’t they just do that here, just not in so many words? I mean…wasn’t that the entire thrust of the article?

      1. Pretty much, yes.

        If this has been published by a conservative about a liberal judge, you know we’d be hearing about dog whistles all day long.

    4. The Gray Cunt would never do that!

    5. Obama isn’t a judge yet.

      1. OMFG! Why did you have to even let a meme like that out into the blogosphere?!
        Talk about a guy who keeps getting promoted despite zero job qualifications!!! Picture Him sitting with the Supremes?!

        Pass me the hemlock cocktail and I’ll celebrate!
        Jeez….

  2. Why don’t they just get on with it and call him the n word?

    1. THAT word was only used by Robert Byrd in his official capacity as Grand Cyclops, NOT as senior Democrat Senator from West Virginia…

    2. I think “Uncle Tom” is more what they’re after.

      1. Part of “house negro” starts with an n.

          1. “house” starts with an N?
            Lop off the top part, me thinks…
            Fuck it, I don’t know…

  3. +1 Clown in Blackface

  4. UNCLE TOM!!

    1. Does this make them Tomists?

  5. Now, studies using linguistic software have discovered

    Trying to decide if I’m going to read past…

    1. Why? Has there been some scandal concerning the methodology of computer-aided corpus linguistics that I’m not aware of or something?

      1. Some reputable people actually partake in corpus linguistics, and retain their ideological commitments. Some of us even know Stefan Gries…

        NTTAWWT

      2. It’s how I suspect(ed) the NYT to apply them to their most hated House Negro, Clarence Thomas.

        You know, sort of like how “reputed scientists” find that “libertarianism” is a kind of mental flaw.

      3. I really dig this part:

        Question: Wait a second ? ‘corpus-linguistic analyses are always based on the evaluation
        of some kind of frequencies?’ What does that mean? I mean, most linguistic research I
        know is not about frequencies at all ? if corpus linguistics is all about frequencies, then
        what does corpus linguistics have to contribute?
        Answer: Well, many corpus linguists would probably not immediately agree to my statement,
        but I think it’s true anyway. There are two things to be clarified here. First, frequency
        of what? The answer is, there are no meanings, no functions, no concepts in
        corpora ? corpora are (usually text) files and all you can get out of such files is distributional
        (or quantitative ?statistical) information:
        ) frequencies of occurrence of linguistic elements, i.e. how often morphemes, words,
        grammatical patterns etc. occur in (parts of) a corpus, etc.; this information is usually
        represented in so-called frequency lists;
        ) frequencies of co-occurrence of these elements, i.e. how often morphemes occur
        with particular words, how often particular words occur in a certain grammatical
        2 Stefan Th. Gries
        [cut for brevity]
        As a linguist, you don’t just want to talk about frequencies or distributional information,
        which is why corpus linguists must make a particular fundamental assumption or a conceptual
        leap, from frequencies to the things linguists are interested in,

        1. Corpus linguists are cunning. They’re …………….. …………….

  6. In other words, if you stick around long enough to read the fine print, you discover that the Times has been misleading you all along.

    Ok, I read past… hey journalism types, isn’t this called ‘burying the lede’?

    1. Only if you think including something in the hed is “burying” it.

    2. Are you sure “burying the lede” isn’t the journalistic equivilent of hide the sausage? Because it should be.

    3. I think this is called “hoping no one with two brain cells reads the article.”

      1. Well it is in the NYT so that’s a reasonable assumption.

  7. “The piece goes on to describe Thomas’ opinions as “rely[ing] heavily on the words of others” and employing “borrowed language.”

    Wow, it’s almost like people in the legal profession have some kind of uniform jargon, which often results in sentences sounding very similar.

    1. What they actually mean is that he pulls comments out of legal briefs and cites them. The only judge who doesn’t really write that way is Antonin Scalia because court briefs don’t contain the words ‘aargle blargle’ or ‘pure applesauce’ and he’ll be damned if he writes a decision that doesn’t have a bit of style.

      1. I’m still laughing over ‘argle-blargle’

        1. It was ‘aargle blargle’ – the Dutch version.

          1. You’re Swiss, WTF do you know about it?

      2. There is that and there is the fact that any case is going to involve a dispute over the meaning of the language of a statute, regulation or case or all three. And both the briefs and the resulting opinion is going to quote that language. So any judge who writes appellate decisions is going to share a decent percentage of the language of their opinions with the briefs.

      3. Additionally, if you read Thomas’s opinions, you find that he is a pretty spartan writer. If you tend to write more directly and with more brevity than the rest of the law system, then every time you quote relevant writing, the average is going to swing.

        For example, if I take 20 words to explain a concept, and Thomas needs 10 words to evaluate its merits, “linguistics software” would say that Thomas’s opinion was 2/3 borrowed. And if Sotomayor had more flowery prose with a few more adjectives, her average “original content” would go up- even though the net result is the same.

        Lies. Damn lies. Statistics.

        1. That’s just jiggery-pokery.

          1. Timey whimey?

        2. And then, too, there’s that “relevant writing”. Some justices think their job is to decide the specific case before them looking at the specific facts and addressing the specific arguments. Their job isn’t to look at the case de novo and make a ruling based on what they think could have been said or should have been said or might have been said. You’re going to use a lot of “original” words (like ‘penaltax’ for example) if your decision is based on some other facts and some other arguments and some other reasoning not actually taken from the actual case that’s actually in front of you. Wait’ll the NYT gets ahold of some of the opinions written by President Trump’s appointees. See how you like all that ‘original’ thinking then.

          1. Lawyer colleague likes to saw that the strength of an opinion is inversely proportional to its length.

        3. You know, I was going to challenge you on those scare quotes, but then I read the original study and saw that not only was the author a political scientist, as opposed to a linguist, but that the software wasn’t any sort of sophisticated parser or concordancer* but a simple compare two documents and count the words program designed to detect plagiarism in student papers (i.e., one dude copying off another dude’s paper).

          I officially declare the study to be merda tauri.

          *It’s a word now. Deal with it.

          1. Merda Tauri

            She finished her Summer ’15 tour already?

            1. That’s no way to speak of America’s Sweetheart, Taylor Swift.

            2. How’s the kidney-hole treating you?

          2. Thanks. I didn’t RTFA, so I don’t even have to apologize for my colleagues.

            1. In case you’re interested, the study is here. But even beyond the choice of software, a huge issue for me in the study is the question of research ethics posed by the competence boundaries of Feldman. While Feldman is a lawyer, and presumably has familiarity with legal discourse, as a doctoral candidate in Poli Sci, it can be presumed that he doesn’t have the familiarity with discourse analysis that a linguist or a scholar in a related field would have that would guide the data analysis, nor does he show any awareness of the need for such knowledge in his research narrative. As someone who has used both DA and conversation analysis in my work, I would put money on the fact that the schema of legal discourse lends itself to a large amount of borrowing…especially in a common law system based on precedent. Without taking this into account, and by relying on simple descriptive statistics of language overlap, it seems that Feldman’s, it seems to me that Feldman’s conclusions concerning the relationship between a judge’s ideology and language use (among others) aren’t warranted.

              Just my 0.02

              1. it seems that Feldman’s, it seems to me that

          3. If only there was a piece of software to detect ideological content in a SCOTUS opinion, and compare it to the plain reading of the Constitution.

    2. Yeah, the difference between Thomas and Sotomayor on one end and Roberts on the other end is so insignificant that it could probably be attributed to referring to the litigants as “the petitioner” and “the respondent” versus their respective last names.

    3. Also, that judges rely on established precedent and consistent reasoning. Is the NYT trying to accuse Thomas of being a judge? SHOCKING!

      1. He should be coming up with a completely new rationale for every opinion he writes! How dare he decide cases on the basis of precedent and the arguments of the parties!!!

        1. It’s kind of insidious the more you think about it. These people want every opinion to be pulled out of judges’ asses and based purely upon raw emotion. No, snowflake, we should not replace a thousand years of jurisprudence with a poetry slam.

          1. In whimsy there is great power.

          2. I don’t know about that. Supreme Court decisions would make for more interesting reading if they started out with “There once was a man from Nantucket…”

          3. Poetry which does not draw influence from the of thousands of years of poetic tradition is consistently trash.

      2. If you ever wanted an example of how “established” journalism is just clueless English majors writing whatever makes them feel good, this is it. We all know that the standards of creative writing class are going to produce respectable legal opinions.

  8. This is so profoundly ignorant that you can only conclude that it is intentional and the result of racism on the part of the Times’ staff. Briefs to the court quote the relevant language of statutes and decisions. And opinions do that as well. So if the brief in a particular case quotes say the 4th Amendment and the resulting opinion does the same, the opinion and the brief share language and gets counted in the percent figure given by the Times. Every brief directly quotes decisions and statute and every opinion does the same. When you understand that, it is actually surprising the figures are not higher and completely expected that the percentages of the various justices would be in a pretty close cluster, which is exactly what they are.

    This article is an insulting lie. You really can’t overstate what stupid, ignorant scum the people who write for the Times are.

    1. It bears repeating: there’s nothing that the Left hates more than a black man who doesn’t support TEAM BLUE.

      See also: their treatment of Thomas Sowell, Colion Noir, Herman Cain, etc.

  9. The Public Editor responded to this today. Admitted, though reluctantly, that the headline seemed more than a bit leading.

    The author of the original article responded by saying absolutely nothing at all:

    By five different measures, Justice Thomas wrote majority opinions that shared language with source materials more than his colleagues did. This was true of parties’ briefs, friend-of-the-court briefs and lower-court decisions, according to three studies and related data that considered two separate time periods. That seemed unusual and worth exploring, and it opened a window onto the phenomenon of shared language in judicial decisions.

    The explanation for Justice Thomas’s consistently high rates of overlapping language, offered at the beginning of the article, was benign: When he is writing for the court, he concentrates on minor, technical cases in which shared wording is particularly common. His many dissenting and concurring opinions, the article added, were another matter, often making expansive and original contributions to constitutional law.

    1. It is true, as the article noted, that Justice Thomas’s rates of shared language were by some measures only modestly higher than those of some other justices. But they were consistently so. Other measures showed that Justice Thomas in the last decade signed a disproportionate share of individual majority opinions with particularly high levels of overlapping language.

      The answer to your question, then, is that the article focused on Justice Thomas because he was the consistent outlier.

      1. He was consistently insignificantly higher than the rest. Yeah, that is totally newsworthy.

      2. In other words, “Sure we stretched the truth, but we’re technically correct by a slim margin on this very specific measurement, so go fuck yourself.”

      3. Justice Thomas’s rates of shared language were by some measures only modestly higher than those of some other justices.

        Not “by some measures”, which implies there are others where his use of shared language was much higher.

        “By every measure” would be accurate. “By some measures” is just another lie.

      4. because he was the consistent outlier

        Outlier has a statistical meaning, you know.

        1. Yeah. To be an “outlier” there has to be a statistically significant difference. Constantly being higher but not statistically significantly higher isn’t good enough.

          But if this clown knew anything, he wouldn’t be a journalist.

    2. Don’t law clerks write this shit?

      1. They do. The justices make their decisions, hand them off to the clerks, and then the clerks get busy doing all the real research and writing work behind the scenes, which then gets handed back to the justices for final editing and approval

        1. The level of editing involved varies from judge to judge and from case to case. If Thomas consistently puts out shorter, tighter opinions than the other justices (as indicated by study), it suggests, if anything, that he demands short, clear, and precise writing from his clerks.

  10. NYT and lefties in general are quite openly racist and misogynist when it comes to their opponents. Seems to me that a really non-bigoted and non-sexist person would look at blacks and women neutrally and treat everyone with respect, not just those they perceive as agreeing with them on most stuff. But what do I know.

    1. This country officially became insane in the 80’s, when it became “racist” to be against racial preferences. Once that became accepted wisdom, it became impossible to have a rational conversation with a liberal/prog.

  11. When uppity negroes refuse to parrot the views of their betters, who really know what’s best for them, they need to be reminded of their place.
    Also, “ideological catnip” is brilliant; I’m stealing it.

  12. burn the heretic!

  13. My favorite part of the article is when the authors refer to things like MS Office’s word count feature and Control+F as “studies using linguistic software.”

    1. The paperclip should probably get a hat-tip, if nothing else.

      1. “Looks like you’re trying to engage in agenda-driven journalism. Would you like some help with that?”

    2. I should have read more carefully. No reputable linguist (or even disreputable ones like me who frequent this board) would even read an article that used ‘tools’ like that. It’s taken me a couple of years to be comfortable with real corpus analysis tools.

  14. No doubt that the left is filled with flaming racists, but that is irrelevant. Their hatred and vitriol is ideologically based. They hate Thomas with th wheat of a thousand suns because he is sort of an originalist and because they tried to torpedo him before he got on the court and they failed.

    They are just never going to let it go.

    1. That’s right, I said it. The wheat of a thousand suns.

      (damned autocorrect)

      1. Not to nit-pick, but you actually said “th wheat of a thousand suns”

      2. Are you Ceres? Are you Ceres?

      3. That is a lot of wheat.

        KILLER CARBS! DEATH GLUTEN!!!

      4. I thought you were making a Wickard reference.

        1. This is why I love H&R, where random misspellings are seriously considered as a potential reference to a not-very-well-known related incident of the past.

          1. +1 Commerce Clause

    2. The funny thing is that Thomas is everything they pretend Obama is but really isn’t. Thomas didn’t grow up with his rich grandparents going to private school. Thomas was the only black guy in an all white high school in South Carolina. And unlike Obama, Thomas was a practicing attorney of some accomplishment and ran the EEOC. And he is a conservative. God do the people at the Times hate him for that.

      1. English is also his second language.

        1. Really? I didn’t know that. What is his first? Did he grow up speaking Gullah?

            1. Wow. I had never heard that. Thanks.

        2. Hey Playa, did you see my instructions for sharpening your machetes last night? I might have replied after you left.

      2. That to me is probably the biggest tragedy of the “get Thomas” mentality. His life is really one of those great American success stories, basically rags-to-riches. Something you could actually celebrate even if you don’t agree with his politics. But his opponents can’t even do that.

        1. Yeah. I have some very harsh things to say about his opinions in the criminal justice arena. But there is no denying he is a great America. I respect the hell out of that guy even though I don’t always agree with him. I respect him a hell of a lot more as a human being than I do Scalia, even though I probably agree with Scalia more than I do Thomas.

        2. Much like with Condi Rice.

          Remember how they treated her?

          Chick plays piano and speaks Russian for crying out loud!

          BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

          1. They used to draw editorial cartoons giving her huge lips. They made her look like Little Black Sambo for God sakes. They really are racists. They so love to feel superior to black people and enjoy it when they can do so.

          2. The only thing they care about is power and since their ideas are so stupid and inhumane and rejected by most the only way for them to get ahead is to tear down others and institutions. So nothing will ever be good enough.

  15. Even Mother Jones called BS on the article.

    (I’m not going to bother to c+p what their commenters said. I recommend not reading them. You know what they said.)

    1. Please do. I refuse to go there, but they are good for a laugh.

      1. I don’t use the slur Uncle Tom very often. Where I come from (middle to upper-middle class blacks) that’s the N-word or C-word of our community — hell, I wouldn’t even use it against blacks who are unquestionably aristocrat-worshiping wingnut douches like Carson and Cain.

        But Clarence “Uncle” Thomas? He has earned it more than any other famous American black that comes to mind. Fucking quisling.

        Then there’s this:

        Thomas is by far the laziest, most disinterested justice on the court.

        Followed by this in the very next comment:

        In the 2014 term he wrote 37 times (including 17 dissents) — no one else on the Court authored more than 30 opinions.

  16. Ironic that the article coincides with the release of Hillary emails – in which sycophants Sid Blumenthal and David Brock discuss committing more character assassination on Thomas.

    1. Which makes me wonder if Blumenthal and Brock coordinated with the NYT article writer?

  17. I don’t always agree with Thomas. Regardless of what you think of his opinions on the court, you have to respect him as human being. The kind of shit he has to endure for the crime of being black and having the wrong opinion would break a whole lot of lesser men. Love him or hate him Thomas has balls.

    1. Which he’ll rub on a Coke can for you if you ask or even if you don’t.

      1. Warren, you are not worthy of such an honor. You are not fit to lick his balls much less receive the honor of having them touch your coke can.

        1. I’ve gone low-carb now so it’s actually a Coke Zero can.

          1. I am not saying I am worthy either. Really, who is? Warty maybe.

            1. That’s a thing I didn’t need a mental image of. Thanks.

            2. Warty already has people for that, though.

              1. “Warty already has orphans for that, though”.

                ftfy

  18. Gee, I recall that in writing papers and such, I was told to err on the side of using more of a quote so that no one could accuse me of taking a quote out of context.

    1. Notice they never accuse him of using the words without attribution. In fact they never explain fully that he didn’t do that. They just left it to their low IQ low information readers to infer that.

  19. “For the New York Times audience”

    A bunch that strikes me as the sort of people who use fancy jargon to beef up their vacuous ideas while adjusting their ascots and spinning the propeller on their beanies at the same time.

    Some of the stupidest things I’ve ever read in comments threads was from the NYT.

    1. Worse than YouTube or ESPN (or any sports comments)?

      1. Yes. Because apparently they’re supposed to be enlightened and educated.

        1. Ironically, both ESPN and NYT commenters are blindly loyal to their team no matter how incompetent or corrupt that team is.

          1. *Golf clap*

    2. They would have to improve a bit to be considered stupid. Insane is more like it. I once read one where some woman was advocating that we re-deposit all of the minerals that we have mined from the earth because Gaia…or something.

      1. These people are too stupid to realize that it will be far cheaper for the rest of us to just return them to the bosom of Gaia instead of destroying our civilization.

  20. “Specious journalism” at the New York Times?

    Do they ever produce any other kind?

    1. Thirty years ago there were a good paper. Read it every day. Really covered the city well. Now…

      1. “Two or three years ago it was just another snake cult, now… they’re everywhere.”

        1. +1 What is the riddle of steel

  21. Oh, by the way, the justices themselves rarely write their own opinions. Their clerks do virtually all of that mundane legal grunt work, and the justices will then go over it and make some final edits of their own.

    The Old Gray Whore certainly knows this, which just makes them even more dishonest.

  22. The New York Times has descended to the level of the kind of advertising-paid free ‘local’ ‘newspaper’ one sees in suburbs like Columbia MD.; reliably Liberal Left, self-righteously Multicultural and at the same time reflexively racist, and written on a level that would disgrace a middle school special ed class.

    1. Hell, they’ve sunk lower than Pennysaver, now that everybody but old sticks in the mud & bums use the Internet.

  23. Wow, what a stunning coincidence – NYT publishing Thomas hit jobs the same time anti-Thomas emails are coming out in the Hillary email dump.
    Every time I think she can’t go any lower, I’m proven wrong. What an evil wench.

    1. Yeah, talk about cover fire.

    2. So it is a distraction from the emails story or part of a plan to take Thomas down?

      1. It makes the email look less insane

  24. So, Kennedy has like a -8.4 percent rating, right?

  25. It’s interesting they go the incompetent route. They did the same thing with Condi Rice. Everyone else in the Bush admin was evil. Condi was just incompetent. You see there not smart enough to have an ideology.

    1. How did the Russians behave under Rice and Bush. Refresh my memory.

    2. Meanwhile idiots like Hillary and Samantha Power just forever have bad luck and overcome by events. No one their side is anything but brilliant.

    3. To be fair, the left said Bush himself was incompetent. They even made at least two movies (F 9/11, W.) about it.

  26. “In other words, if you stick around long enough to read the fine print, you discover that the Times has been misleading you all along. Thomas has done nothing unusual. His writing conforms to standard practices among the justices.”

    15 column-inches to misdirect attention and 1/4 column-inch to contradict the earlier 15.

  27. Scratch a liberal…find a racist.

  28. it’s the same treatment they gave Sarah Palin. they’ll do it to anyone who is not a straight white male. and it’s not really about Palin or Thomas. it’s about firing a shot across the bow of anyone who might think about leaving that old democrat plantation. you’ll be called an Uncle Tom and your daughter will be called a whore in national media.

  29. Thomas to clerks in meeting: For the next three months, I want all of you to use a minimum of 50 words instead of the standard four that mean FYTW.

  30. Who is “Clarence Thomas”? There is no Supreme Court justice called “Clarence Thomas”. The true name of the man you are writing about is LONG DONG SILVER.

  31. Thomas is perhaps the most articulate writer on the supreme court . He well described the Left’s attack on him during his confirmation :

    “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

    1. Imagine the level of hysterics on the left if Janice Rodgers Brown ever got appointed to the Supreme Court.

  32. Wjhat do they want appeals judges to be, novelists? The best thing would be if they wrote absolutely nothing original! Then maybe people would have a decent chance of figuring out the law!!

    Yeah, I know some judges are hilarious, but I wish people would stop lionizing appeals judges for their great prose, their turn of a phrase, etc. They’re not supposed to be interesting! The whole goddamn law should not be interesting!!!! It should be moronically simple & boring!

  33. I, for one, have had a long time distrusted of anything political the New York Times puts out. I have found numerous outright untruths, outright lies and false assumptions. This attributing of evil intentions to any type of disagreement with their philosophy is dishonest and abhorrent to say the least so I stopped sending them proofs of their errors because it changes nothing and just makes them angry. To save myself the frustration I have stopped reading their BS.

  34. Thomas is the real intellectual heavy-weight of the SCOTUS. Sadly we don’t have 8 other clones of him – the US government’s power would be far more constrained than it is today if we had those clones…and by far more reasoned and Constitutionally grounded decisions…

  35. Bullshit! Lawyers use Latin terms they didn’t originate all the time, and the Fucked-Up Gray Lady has been stealing words from prior publications like DICTIONARIES for decades and decades.

    The hypocrisy! The UTTER HYPOCRISY!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.