Supreme Court

Jeffrey Toobin Criticizes Pundits Like Himself for Being Unfair to Clarence Thomas

Another day, another garbage New Yorker article on the Supreme Court justice



Writing at The New Yorker, liberal legal pundit Jeffrey Toobin offered the following observation about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

Since his stormy confirmation, in 1991, Thomas has been the target of much unfair criticism. Some have argued, for example, that his years of silence during oral arguments meant he was not doing much work at all.

It's certainly true that Justice Thomas has been subjected to that sort of baseless smear attack from certain liberal opponents. But what Toobin failed to mention is that Toobin himself is guilty of making that very same baseless smear attack on Thomas. For example, here's Toobin writing at The New Yorker in February 2014:

In his first years on the Court, Thomas would rock forward, whisper comments about the lawyers to his neighbors Breyer and Kennedy, and generally look like he was acknowledging where he was. These days, Thomas only reclines; his leather chair is pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every schoolteacher knows this look. It's called "not paying attention."

Toobin must think that readers of The New Yorker aren't paying attention. Why else would he now pretend to be a critic of the very same garbage that he himself has been writing for years?

Related: The New Yorker's Embarrassing Attack on Clarence Thomas

NEXT: The Hillbilly Epidemiologists

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As I understand it, the oral arguments at SCOTUS aren’t all that important in most cases and are mostly a place for the justices to show off.

    1. A ConLaw professor told me years ago about a Thurogood Marshall quote, “I already decided how I’m going to rule on the case. Now, go out and find me case law to support it.”

    2. That’s about right. The trend to ask dozens of questions started only a few decades ago, with Thurgood Marshall, if I’m not mistaken. It’s largely an exercise in the justice either showing off how smart they are or bickering with their colleagues through the attorney. Justice Thomas has said on numerous occasions that he just doesn’t approve of that.

  2. Didn’t HBO just do a docu-drama about the Thomas/Hill affair?

    1. There is a hair on my Coke.

    2. No they did a propaganda piece on it.

      Anything on HBO that is advertised as a documentary or docu-anything can be properly classfied as propaganda.

  3. or lawyers to jerk off…

  4. How do we close the achievement gap for black Supreme Court justices?

    1. haven’t you heard? Progs gets around this by saying he’s not ‘really black’ and just ‘acting white’, like what they did this year to Ben Carson.

      1. Not black enough.…..story.html

      2. Which is particularly absurd with Thomas. I don’t think one could have a more authentic, underprivileged African American experience than he has.

      3. Yet the half white Obama is properly considered all black.

        1. Not just half-white: raised by white grandparents, affluent surroundings, sent to elite prep schools, as culturally white as Hillary.

          Ever see him try to jump? Sad!

          1. And grew up in Hawaii, which isn’t exactly Savannah GA when it comes to connections with black American culture.

            1. Went to the most exclusive and expensive school in the state as well. CHOOM!

  5. Thomas brought this all on himself. If he’d just get on the Democrat plantation instead of being an uncle tom for Rethuglicans, it would all go away.

  6. The New Yorker is a fetid cesspool of Progressive idiocy and moral preening.

    1. ^this.

      They can’t even publish decent fiction. It’s all Jonathan Franzen clones. Humorless prog drones.

    2. And has been since shortly after the death of Harold Ross. Ross kept the magazine from getting too serious. He tolerated a few flights like the issue that was essentially the first edition of HIROSHIMA, but he didn’t approve of politicking in general.

  7. Toobin is so tedious.

  8. I first saw Toobin on CNN. He was making a hilariously facile ‘the 2A isn’t about the right to bear arms’ argument I found to be predictable as it was smug. Never listened to him again. What’s the point?

    Bring something to the table Toobin.

    1. And here’s that.

      This “explainer journalism” stuff really reaches its apex when they start ‘explanations’ by describing the stuff they’re supposed to be explaining as “Mysterious, poorly understood”… and then proceed to insert new language into amendments and adding parenthetical interpretations in order to make the simple statements they were ostensibly ‘explaining’ into entirely new, different things.

      He then goes off on a tangent about how its all about “militias”, which are a thing from Ye Olden Times which the country needed because we had no ability to raise an army; now, having a standing army, they are a vestigial anachronism which obviously needs to be given pre-emptive appendectomy

      1. its all about “militias”, which are a thing from Ye Olden Times which the country needed because we had no ability to raise an army; now, having a standing army

        Great, and the Constitution was amended to reflect this, right? Or does it just expire when enough progtard explainers agree?

        1. Or does it just expire when enough progtard explainers agree?

          Of course. All GOODTHINKING people know this. /progtard

          1. RIGHT-Thinking as in left thinking people.

          2. RIGHT-Thinking as in left thinking people.

            1. And goodthinkful squirrelz

      2. Exactly.

        When I was studying American history in university I don’t recall the 2A ever being an issue. There was little or no energy spent on this strange ‘reinterpretation’ of the Constitution or reworking of its language. At worse, from what I can remember, liberal academics were just upset the 2A did mean what it said and they could do little about it except to complain and roll their eyes. Now, they’ve taken to reinventing it and Toobin (who I believe is one of those ‘I must lecture the ignorant fools’ who asserts it’s the right, in a recent ‘phenomena’ who misread the Constitution falls into that category of revisionists we soooo loathed in college.

        I don’t accept a single word he argues.

    2. Isn’t Toobin one of the progressive academics who were instrumental in ending the ‘collective right’ interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

      1. Yep. That’s our boy. Captain Cognitive Dissonance.

    1. Toobin is a first class piece of shit.

  9. Toobin must think that readers of The New Yorker aren’t paying attention.

    More likely he thinks they’re mouth-breathing retards with the attentions span of gnats. And he’s right.

    1. It’s all a matter of ritual and affirmation, not information or analysis.

    2. No. He thinks they are all “In The Know” Liberal Intellectuals who will blindly accept whatever drivel he chooses to write. And, since nobody with the brain that God gave a turnip has read the thing since roughly 1970, he’s right.

  10. RE: Another Day, Another Garbage New Yorker Article on Clarence Thomas
    The liberal magazine attacks the conservative Supreme Court justice.

    The New Yorker, a wonderful progressive magazine that should be read by the collective, is quite correct in attacking Clarence Thomas.
    He is responsible for continually defending the archaic, racist and inherently oppressive US Constitution.
    He has defended the repugnant Bill of Rights without shame.
    He has continually expressed disdain for our beloved and hard working Big Government agencies and bureaucracies by attempting to limit their power of the little people at every given opportunity.
    He has openly expressed contempt for The State and its wise use of oppression, and if that isn’t bad enough, it has been rumored, although unproven, that he is a closet capitalist.
    Clarence Thomas is a disgrace to his profession, to his seat of power and to all the socialist ideals our benevolent socialist slavers strive to make our country a socialist paradise like Cuba, North Korea or the old USSR.
    He should indeed hold his head in shame.

    1. He has defended the repugnant Bill of Rights without shame.

      Parts of it, anyway. He has some troubles reading the 4th and 5th.

  11. Remember its not racist to criticize black republicans because being republican is not acceptable for black people.

  12. his leather chair is pitched so that he can stare at the ceiling, which he does at length. He strokes his chin. His eyelids look heavy. Every schoolteacher knows this look. It’s called “not paying attention.”

    Maybe every public school union schoolteacher knows that look, but the rest of us sometimes close our eyes to remove distraction and pay closer attention. I almost always do this with music I like, or poetry, or Shakespeare, or other audio.

    Toobin probably reads out loud and can’t close his eyes because then he’d have to hear himself.

    1. I imagine that’s also the look of “thinking about what is being said”, myself.

    2. dae le public schools are evil?

  13. Who is “Clarence Thomas”? There is no Supreme Court justice called “Clarence Thomas”. His true name is LONG DONG SILVER.

    A reporter once asked why he was so friendly with the custodial staff. He answered that he often felt he had more in common with them than with the other justices. The reporter should have answered (but didn’t): “Most Americans feel that way about you, sir!”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.