Posted by Todd Zywicki:
Clarence Thomas Speaks at Bill of Rights Institute Banquet:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_12-2009_04_18.shtml#1239890008
A few weeks back, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at the
annual banquet of the [1]Bill of Rights Institute honoring the
national winners of the "Being and American" essay contest. A full
description of the contest and a listing of the winner is [2]here.
C-Span broadcast his remarks last night, but I was out of town and
missed it. You can download a transcript (including the Q&A)[3] here.
I don't know whether C-Span intends to rebroadcast the speech, but
this seems like the sort of thing that it would. Juan Williams was the
emcee, and his comments are quite interesting as well. After his
prepared remarks, Justice Thomas took time to answer several questions
from students, which provided additional insight into his thinking.
Thomas's remarks were quite touching and personal, keeping with the
theme of the banquet and essay contest on "Being and American." He
talks a great deal about his growing-up, touching on themes raised in
his autobiography. He also talks a lot about the challenges and
awesome responsibility of sitting on the Court.
A few excerpts that I found especially interesting (although pretty
much the whole thing is interesting). In response to the question "How
does your faith or your world view impact your role as a Supreme Court
Justice?" Justice Thomas says:
Well first of all I don�t even know what a world view is anymore.
You think you have things figured out when you�re young and then
you as you get older you figure, oh my goodness all that�s wrong. I
think the more you learn, the more reluctant you are to say I�ve
got it all figured out because some of this is beyond me. But as
far as your faith, I think that it really gives content to the oath
that you took. You took an oath to do a job right. You know, I hear
people say, they ask questions like, such as, what do you want your
legacy to be? Yeah, what do I know? I�m not going to be here anyway
when you have a legacy. But the point is, we�re not in the job to
establish a legacy. We�re in the job to live up to an oath and do
it right and I think faith gives content to that because you say
�so help me God�. The other thing is that there�s some tough cases.
There are some cases that will drive you to your knees, and in
those moments you ask for strength and wisdom to have the right
answer and the courage to stand up for it. But beyond that you
don�t, it would be illegitimate I think and a violation of my oath
to incorporate my religious beliefs into the decision making
process. And I don�t think it�s appropriate so I don�t do that.
It�s more personal, it really helps me to do the job the right way
and to do it properly. (clapping)
In response to a question about whether his judicial philosophy has
changed over time, he remarks:
Well in law school I didn�t have one, I was just trying to
graduate. You know in law school you really don�t know a whole lot,
you learn substantive due process, you try to figure out what
emanations from penumbras are, you take your tort classes and your
UCC Classes and you do your best. And I think what happens is you
grow up. I mean you�ve been a judge (to Napolitano), when you
begin, it�s one thing to learn a case. It�s another thing to use
that case to decide another case, to decide the fate of someone.
Those are two entirely different endeavors. You know and this could
be totally wrong and it may be totally apocryphal but I�ll say it
anyway recognizing that I disclaim whether it�s accurate or not,
but it makes the point.
There are many people who think because they know a theory about
law, that that�s the same thing as actually judging. You�ve done
both, you know the difference (to Justice Andrew Napolitano). It is
much harder to do the judging part than to talk about it. So
someone said to me that a great basketball player, and they used
Michael Jordan at his prime, had been criticized by a sport�s
writer who really knew basketball. And someone went to Michael
Jordan or some other great player and said to him, �this reporter
criticized you�, the sport�s reporter, �what do you think of that?�
And his response supposedly was, �tell him to suit up�. Those are
two entirely different endeavors- playing the game and knowing
about the game. So I think that the whole process of learning a
judicial philosophy, my judicial philosophy is to try to discern
the intent of the framers in constitutional cases, and in statutory
cases, the intent of the legislature and to try to keep my personal
views out of it completely, as best I can, does that make sense?
Thank you. (clapping)
And an amusing dig at all of back-seat drivers of the Court's work:
I think though the way it�s really changed me, I think even talking
tonight, I�m very very reluctant to, to have a strong opinion on
something without having briefs or opinions to read and think
through. It slows you down because, you know this job is easy for
people who�ve never done it. [laughter, clapping] And what I have
found in this job is that they know more about it than I do,
especially if they have the title �law professor.� It also is easy
with people who know what they think before they�ve thought. They
know how they�re going to come out and which position is the right
position. For the rest of us who have to decide, and who want to
live up to that oath to do it the right way, it is a little bit, it
is a lot harder, and it requires that you not have these strong,
un-counseled stakes in issues that are going to come before you. So
you�re reluctant to dig in on these big things that are happening
in our society until you�ve had a chance to think them through,
until you�ve got a case before you. So that�s sort of a long way of
saying it slows you down a little bit.
Anyway, it is a fascinating lecture, entertaining, heart-felt, and
insightful, ruminating on the balance between personal liberty and
personal responsibility that is necessary to sustain a free society.
Needless to say, all of this was just too mind-blowing for those at
the New York Times which filed [4]this report on the speech. Read the
speech, then read Adam Liptak's story, and then ask yourself why the
Times now has so little credibility with many of us. I have to admit,
I don't even read it anymore and I only saw this story because
somebody pointed me to it. Of course, this is the same newspaper that
once [5]quoted from a parody website website spoofing a Dartmouth
student secret society as if it was a real website.
BRI is an extraordinary organization and it has been my great
privilege to be associated with the group from its inception, first as
the Chair of the Academic Advisory Council and now as a member of its
Board of Directors. The "Being an American" Essay Contest is the
largest of its type in the United States and this year over 30,000
students submitted essays. If you are a high-schooler or have children
or siblings of high school age, I commend to you both the essay
contest as well as BRI's "[6]Constitutional Academy," which culminates
in a week-long summer program in DC taught by college professors.
Student participants can earn three hours of college credit for
completing the program.
References
1. http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Learn/Programs/
2. http://www.beinganamerican.org/
3. http://www.beinganamerican.org/files/essays/thomas_keynote.pdf
4.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14bar.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=clarence%20thomas&st=cse
5. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_09-2007_09_15.shtml#1189888278
6. http://www.constacademy.org/about/brochure_full.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
