Harvard JLPP Hosts Online Symposium on Justice Thomas's 30th Anniversary on the Supreme Court

Contributions from Katsas, Maggs, Stras, Ho, Hardy, Ryan, Rao, and Garnett

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has published a symposium issuing celebrating Thomas's three decades of service. There are contributions from eight of Thomas's former clerks, many of whom became federal judges.

Symposium Foreword: Justice Thomas Joins the Supreme Court – Gregory G. Katsas

Justice Thomas and Stare Decisis – Gregory E. Maggs

Speaking Out on Justice Thomas – David R. Stras

"Be Not Afraid" – James C. Ho

Justice Thomas: Staunch Defender of Criminal Defendants' Fifth and Sixth Amendments Rights – Liam P. Hardy and Margaret A. Ryan

Saying What the Law Is, Justice Thomas Style – Neomi Rao

What I Saw at the Daytona 500 – Nicole Stelle Garnett

I look forward to reading all the entries.

When Justice Thomas was confirmed in 1991, I was about 7 years old. I have this faintest memory about the confirmation hearing. My parents were driving down 4th Avenue in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, listening to the news on the radio. There was some report about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I had no idea what the story was about. I don't even think I knew what the Supreme Court was. But I distinctly remember there was some sort of serious conflict. I can't tell you why that story stuck in my mind, but it did. (I also remember the radio report a few months later about the fall of the Soviet Union; we are about to get on the Gowanus by 72nd Street). Three decades later, I am a law professor. And Clarence Thomas is still on the Supreme Court.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

That hearing was the beginning of the lying feminist attack on productive males, the start of the #MeToo, #BelievetheAccuser. It was vicious. Republicans have to return the Democrat lawfare on our nation. They are weak.

The accuser is a lawyer. End of case. That is exactly the same as saying, the accuser is a hooer. End of case.

[DaivdBehar]

The real argument against Thomas is that he is an Ivy indoctrinated, lawyer scumbag. None of those should ever be named to the Supreme Court.

[Queen Amalthea]

"End of case."
Establishing you're a strange authoritarian nut, yeah.

[JonFrum]

When Justice Thomas first went on the court, he was described as a near-half-wit. Since he didn't ask questions in open court, it was assumed/asserted that he couldn't think. Ironic, that.

Now we know that not only is he simply the nicest guy, but he is also a deep legal thinker.

[DaivdBehar]

Everyone knows, the top performing students in class just do not talk.

[Cal Cetín]

"Gregory G. Katsas...James C. Ho"

I hope Beavis and Butthead weren't invited to this symposium.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The shortest presentation will be, "Important decisions that Rehnquist and Roberts trusted Thomas to write". Time: 0:00

[Cal Cetín]

Roberts trims more often than a landscaper.

[Jaypd]

Imagine going to Harvard law, getting onto the law and public policy journal, and being told you have to do an entire edition dedicated to Justice Thomas with only authors who love him.

I'm surprised the staff didn't quite en masse.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Maybe the writers are doing an Alan Sokal, if you know what I mean.

[Cal Cetín]

If they're at Harvard Law, they may end up in front of the very Justice they socially-signalled against. Not that Thomas would hold it against their clients, though. But it would be like farting in church.

And checking their archives, they seem to run a lot of articles which, at least judging from the titles or authors, are conservative.

The admissions committee must have let these students in by mistake, they're supposed to be in Biola or Liberty U, not in one of our liberal/libertarian institutions of higher learning.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The trick is to not run a simultaneous debunking, like Sokal did. Keep it a secret. Devise a "hi" sign that only those in the know flash to each other, perhaps when about to stand up to argue. The Justices will wonder what the little smirks are about.

[Queen Amalthea]

Lots of conservatives excel at places like the Ivies though perhaps not relatively.

[Cal Cetín]

I suppose the high grades of all those sociology and women's-studies majors give the advantage to the progressives.

[Queen Amalthea]

There's a pretty small amount of those majors in the world outside of many conservatives head.

[Cal Cetín]

I don't have the figures on students, but Harvard sure seems to have a lot of sociology *professors.*

https://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/

If (which God forbid) you were to shoot a paintball gun into a crowd of Harvard sociologists, and then into a crowd of Harvard physicists, in which scenario would you be more likely to splatter your missile over a progressive?

[Queen Amalthea]

1. "I don’t have the figures on students, but Harvard sure seems to have a lot of sociology *professors.*" The composition of the faculty doesn't necessarily say much about the composition of the student body or even majors.

2. Try comparing how many Soc profs there are to the number in the Business school.

3. " in which scenario would you be more likely to splatter your missile over a progressive?"

Not sure there'd be much difference, my experience with hard science profs is they greatly skew left too.

[Cal Cetín]

OK, sure, but in my experience it isn't because they applied the scientific method to politics.

[Queen Amalthea]

Knowledge about one field doesn't mean knowledge about another, sure, but in my experience it's the whole 'experts are dumb/part of a global conspiracy' stuff that makes experts in general conservative-wary.

[Cal Cetín]

Now do systemic racism.

[Cal Cetín]

Now do systemic racism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Didn't used to, but about 20-30 years ago, a lot of academic institutions started doing hiring and tenure decisions on the basis of political ideology. The original conservative mix in the professoriate is aging out as they retire, and not being replaced.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Maybe the writers are doing a collective Al Sokal, if you know what I mean.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The relevant publication isn't the Harvard Law Review . . . it is the separatist conservative publication, part of the clingerverse. I would expect to learn that the fledgling right-wingers working for that publication knew -- and liked -- precisely what they were getting into.

[Sidney r finkel]

Now it can finally be revealed.

Inside the desk of every Chief Justice since the early 1990's is a note addressed to his successor. It reads

"Don't ever give Clarence a significant case in which to write the majority opinion. Clarence has no idea of what the law is or how to interpret things. He is a nutcase"

And they never have.

[Brett Bellmore]

30 years. How time flies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If I was middle-aged then, what does that make me now?

[Brett Bellmore]

An old fart, just like me. 😉