Kashmir Hill and David Lat of Above the Law have an interesting Washington Post column urging Justice Clarence Thomas to run for president. I know Lat because he was a year ahead of me in law school. He’s a very smart guy, and I have great respect for all the success he has achieved as a legal blogger. But I think he and Hill are barking up the wrong tree here.
I see a few positives in a Thomas candidacy. As Hill and Lat point out, Thomas is smart, eloquent, and has significant libertarian leanings. A black Republican presidential nominee might also have great symbolic value, even despite (or perhaps because of) Obama’s historic breakthrough.
Nonetheless, there are very strong arguments against a Thomas run that easily outweigh the positives. First, it would surely reopen the whole issue of Anita Hill’s sexual harassment charges. Whether you think that Hill was telling the truth or not, there is no doubt that the press and public opinion would focus on this issue. It would quickly become an immense distraction, and greatly reduce Thomas’ chances of winning.
On this point, Hill and Lat say only that Thomas “has already survived the nasty political attacks that marked his 1991 confirmation hearings.” He survived them in the sense that he (just barely) got confirmed. But the charges continue to dog Thomas to this day, and a presidential campaign would surely reopen this can of worms. It would have an immensely polarizing effect, and make it more difficult for Thomas to appeal to constituencies that aren’t already predisposed in his favor. We got a foretaste of what might happen when the Hill issue resurfaced three years ago when Thomas published his memoir. That controversy, of course, was nothing compared to what would happen if Thomas became a serious presidential contender.
The second argument against a Thomas run is even more important: he would have to resign from the Supreme Court and Barack Obama would get to pick his successor. I have been very critical of Thomas’ positions on several issues (e.g. – here). On balance, however, he has been one of the most libertarian and originalist justices, and I would be sorry to lose him.
Right now, the Court has a narrow 5-4 conservative majority. If Obama replaces Thomas with a liberal, the balance would flip. Hill and Lat (who is a conservative himself) try to minimize this risk by arguing that “[t]hus far, Obama has not nominated hard-core liberals to the court; his recent choice of Solicitor General Elena Kagan disappointed many on the left.” I remain unpersuaded. Obama’s first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has turned out to be a reliable liberal vote. Given her previous record, this should not have been a surprise; on several key issues, such as property rights, she was actually somewhat further to the left than the rest of the liberal bloc on the Court.
Elena Kagan may turn out to be slightly less liberal than the other potential nominees Obama was considering. Still, she is likely to vote with the liberal bloc on most major issues, and is certainly far more liberal than Thomas. The same is likely to be true of any justice Obama nominates to replace Thomas. That nominee may be a bit less liberal than Sotomayor. But he or she will still support the liberals on most issue and will still be very far from Thomas’ positions. This is especially likely if, as expected, the Democrats retain control of the Senate after the November elections.
Hill and Lat also contend that Thomas could make up for the loss of his seat by appointing conservative justices to replace liberal ones if he wins in 2012. However, the combination of an improving economy and the Anita Hill issue will make it difficult for Thomas to beat Obama that year. If circumstances arise that do make a Thomas victory possible, they would also make a win by a different Republican nominee at least equally feasible. If any Republican other than Thomas wins in 2012, he could both hold Thomas’ seat and replace whatever liberal justices happen to retire during his term.
There are other aspects of Thomas’ record and personality that might impede his candidacy. For example, he does not seem to be a person comfortable with the constant glare of media attention that surrounds a presidential campaign. Quotations from his many forceful Supreme Court opinions would probably provide good fodder for clever attack ads (especially if taken out of context).
In sum, a Thomas presidential candidacy strikes me as a bad idea. The only people likely to benefit are liberals who would welcome the opportunity to replace Thomas with an Obama nominee, and anyone who would enjoy relitigating the Thomas-Hill controversy.
Stephen Lathrop says:
The main problem with a Thomas run is it would deprive Antonin Scalia. Check the record, and you will see that Scalia follows Thomas’ lead in almost every case on which they write opinions, with Scalia only sometimes asserting a bit of independence and showing a little liberal variation from Thomas steadfast conservatism. Overall, Scalia votes the way Thomas votes. They are joined at the hip, and Scalia would be lost without Thomas on the court showing Scalia what to decide.
June 16, 2010, 4:34 amGuy says:
Whoever Obama would nominate, he or she will almost certainly be more liberal than Kennedy, which is really all that matters. I really don’t understand the argument for him running at all, it pretty much boils down to he’s conservative, he has name recognition, he’s black, and he seems bored with the job. And unless I’m severely mistaken, he has never held an elected office. In a lot of ways this almost seems like the mirror image of the suggestion that Obama should appoint himself to the Court.
June 16, 2010, 4:38 amGuy says:
They certainly do vote together a lot, but somehow I don’t get the impression that Scalia has trouble forming strong opinions on his own.
June 16, 2010, 4:40 amObserver says:
I think that Thomas is the Justice whose opinions are most often correct, but I assumed that Lat’s column was a joke, for many of the reasons given by Somin here.
June 16, 2010, 4:55 amShelbyC says:
Jan Crawford Greenberg said about the same thing, IIRC
June 16, 2010, 5:08 amDoc Merlin says:
As much as I would love a Clarence Thomas presidency, I have to agree with Ilya here. Thomas is needed just where he is.
June 16, 2010, 5:47 ammikeyes says:
Then there is that business about Justice Thomas not wanting to give up his job and run for President (no cite, just common sense.)
June 16, 2010, 6:31 amNaG says:
The Hill/Lat article would have meant something had either one of the authors been actually willing to vote for Justice Thomas over President Obama (who, presumably, will run for re-election in 2012). If Ed Feulner had written the article, maybe then an actual debate on the pros and cons would be out there. But from Hill/Lat, it’s just an excuse to write something for the Post.
June 16, 2010, 6:33 amBrett Bellmore says:
The GOP is not allowed to elect blacks to high office, it’s a direct, existential threat to the Democratic party, which is utterly reliant on getting a fraction of the black vote that makes a Stalinist show election look like a squeaker. If Thomas were to run, Democrats would do anything it took to destroy him, right up to and including assassination. I assume Thomas is aware of that.
I don’t get the impression that Thomas is even willing to risk a repeat of the Anita Hill type slanders, if he was willing to run for President you’d have to suspect he was suicidal.
June 16, 2010, 6:37 amNoah David Simon says:
you had to write a post to figure out that the problem with a Clarence Thomas presidential candidacy would be that it would give Obama a supreme court nomination?
Sometimes I disagree with this blog… (and sometimes I learn something too) but if there ever were a post that deserved a personal attack on what kind of drugs you are taking… this would be it.
June 16, 2010, 6:45 amDaniel says:
Well the answer is obvious to me, a GMU student. Walter Williams should run for president.
June 16, 2010, 7:11 amShag from Brookline says:
Change the header to:
“CAL THOMAS FOR PRESIDENT?”
a conservative of a different color?
June 16, 2010, 7:17 ampublic_defender says:
Professor Somin is a very interesting writer on property rights, but his posts on political reality are more intellectual musings than serious strategic thought.
He’s no Karl Rove or James Carville. But he’s a law professor, so that’s not exactly an insult. It’s a law professor’s job to posit unrealistic hypotheticals to highlight intellectual points.
June 16, 2010, 7:19 amFloridan says:
This brings to mind the famous comment of Winston Wolfe in Pulp Fiction: “Well, let’s not start . . . quite yet.”
Thomas wouldn’t make it out of the first Republican caucus/primary.
June 16, 2010, 7:33 amJust Dropping By says:
I’ve seen observations on other sites that there doesn’t appear to be any constitutional reason that Thomas would have to resign from the Court to run for President, only that he’d have to resign in the event that he actually won.
June 16, 2010, 7:41 amruuffles says:
Oh boy somebody better check and see if Alan Keyes and Michael Steele are still alive after their runs for Senate.
Iowa?
June 16, 2010, 8:01 amPierre Corneille says:
Depending on the issue at stake, that’s not necessarily the same thing as a “libertarian majority,” even if (some) libertarians think that on balance, a conservative majority on the Court is more likely to lead to libertarian outcomes. (Still, Miranda much?)
June 16, 2010, 8:05 amSarcastro says:
Amazing! How does he keep knowing liberal tactics before they use them?
June 16, 2010, 8:09 amFloridan says:
ruuffles: “Iowa?”
Who knows? The various state primaries and caucuses are about as stable as NCAA football conferences.
June 16, 2010, 8:11 amruuffles says:
Obviously Democrats orchestrated the assassinations of JFK and RFK … to give Teddy a path to the Presidency?
June 16, 2010, 8:11 amPierre Corneille says:
?????????????
June 16, 2010, 8:12 amruuffles says:
At least the name of the primary is still related to the state. Unlike the name of the conferences and the number of members.
June 16, 2010, 8:15 amArkady says:
Meds need recalibrating?
June 16, 2010, 8:22 amruuffles says:
Assuming that is true, then if Thomas won he would get to appoint his own successor, who will be to the left of him. The best he and senate republicans could hope for is another Roberts or Alito, if republicans controlled the senate. (The gang of 14 also included the implication that those nominees that moved forward would have no shot at the supreme court)
June 16, 2010, 8:23 amSteve says:
The GOP is not allowed to elect blacks to high office, it’s a direct, existential threat to the Democratic party, which is utterly reliant on getting a fraction of the black vote that makes a Stalinist show election look like a squeaker.
It couldn’t be because Republicans constantly make racist comments like Congressman Steve King’s statements the other day (which no significant Republican seems to have disavowed). No, it must be the unstated threat of assassination!
June 16, 2010, 8:29 amgeokstr says:
Absolutely, given that the Campaigner-in-Chief rarely even warmed his seat in his four years in the Senate, but instead began running for president almost immediately after being sworn in. Not a bad gig – $175K/year plus a boatload of benefits and all the graft you can eat to not do the job you were hired to do.
June 16, 2010, 8:48 amgeokstr says:
Or it could be that it is impossible for Republicans to outbid Democrats in giving out welfare, preferences and affirmative action benefits to buy their votes with. Or it could even be that Democrats and their Lewinsky’s in the press make up “fake but accurate” racist quotes to put in the mouths of Republicans, or even that their congressmen are willing to lie about racial epithets being hurled at them, or that Republicans can be called racists with impunity simply for disagreeing with Obama’s agenda, or even that the MSM will cover up the racist comments of Democrats.
June 16, 2010, 8:58 amDantheman says:
An article on whether someone should run for the Presidency which waits until the 9th out of 10 paragraphs to even consider the process of running and whether the proposed candidate would be well suited for it. And even then discussing it in a remarkably cursory manner. Who says the VC are a bunch of ivory tower eggheads who never deal with the real-world issues?
There is no reason to think Clarence Thomas would be anything other than a lousy candidate for President. He has never run for any elected office. He appears notably thin-skinned in a role which requires rhinoceros hide. He does not communicate in sound bites in a role which makes it mandatory.
June 16, 2010, 9:18 amAlast says:
Of all the living justices, O’Connor would be my choice as president.
June 16, 2010, 9:20 amBoovers says:
Or it could be that it is impossible for Republicans to outbid Democrats in giving out welfare, preferences and affirmative action benefits to buy their votes with.
Or it could be that statements like this (I’m assuming that you are a Republican, or at least lean to the right) are a turn off to a group of people that rightly believe that they are characterized as lazy, incompetent and undeserving of respect by a political party that now wants their vote.
June 16, 2010, 9:20 amAngus says:
Or, it could be that two of the last three Chairmen of the Republican party have publicly admitted that the party purposely used racism to appeal to the racist white vote.
June 16, 2010, 9:21 amHouston Lawyer says:
While I find the whole idea of a Thomas run for president fanciful, it would be great fun. He has an authenticity that Obama lacks. I believe that he could easily attract the vote of a very large portion of the electorate. He is a man who has consistently held a particular world view since coming into the public eye, and he often is the most intelligible writer on the Court.
It would be fun to watch the party of Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Al Gore attack him for his alleged treatment of Anita Hill some decades ago.
June 16, 2010, 9:27 amChris Travers says:
Never confuse “unlikely” with “impossible.”
June 16, 2010, 9:29 amChris Travers says:
+1
June 16, 2010, 9:30 amruuffles says:
I’m disappointed that Sarcastro is pretending to be other posters.
Let’s not confuse sexual harassment with adultery. Plus there’s been no claims of the latter vis-a-vis Gore. Also, Vitter, Ensign, Sanford. Those are just the ones still in office.
June 16, 2010, 9:35 amAnonsters says:
I suspect the writers of the column were simply trolling WaPo.
June 16, 2010, 9:38 amrpt says:
And Sharron Angle could be his vice-presidential running mate.
June 16, 2010, 9:42 amkrs says:
As Observer said, I also thought Lat/Hill’s column was largely tongue-in-cheek. It’s an interesting thought experiment, as far as it goes.
On the other hand, other politicians like Clinton and Schwarzenegger have weathered accusations of sexual harassment and remain extremely popular. Somehow I doubt Thomas would be treated as well as they have, but I’m not sure why.
I have no response in rebuttal to Prof. Somin’s comment on the consequences of replacing Thomas with an Obama appointee. Even if Sotomayor and Kagan don’t seem to be flaming Reinhardt-type liberals who would hold prisons unconstitutional or constitutionalize rights to welfare and government-funded abortions on demand if given the chance, that’s rather faint praise as an argument in favor of Thomas resigning to run for president.
June 16, 2010, 9:44 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
What did King say that was “racist”? By what definition of “racism”?
June 16, 2010, 9:51 amCornellian says:
I’m guessing speeches wouldn’t be his strong suit.
June 16, 2010, 9:55 amAnonsters says:
Here you go: http://tinyurl.com/26j8kch
June 16, 2010, 9:55 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I recall, during Thomas’s confirmation hearings, one TV panelist asking another, wide-eyed, “What could Anita Hill possibly have to gain by lying about Clarence Thomas?”
The answer was obvious to anyone who knows about the college lecture circuit, which Hill very forseeably became a star of. It may be that she donated all of her speaking fees to women’s issues advocacy groups, but if she didn’t then the credibility of her accusations, revived, would be very much undermined by an apparent profit motive – which this time around wouldn’t get swept under the rug.
June 16, 2010, 10:01 amHouston Lawyer says:
Ruufles
You are a few days behind the curve on Al Gore’s alleged affair
And it was a sexual harrassment claim that led to the deposition that led to Bill Clinton’s perjury and later impeachment.
It would just be another opportunity to point out that the Democrats only care about sexual harrassment when it is done by a Republican.
June 16, 2010, 10:05 amSteve P. says:
Not to defend the dude, but it seems he was quoted a bit out of context. Here’s the full quote:
Still not a shining example of the modern man, but definitely less damning than the quote that was originally published.
June 16, 2010, 10:05 amAnonsters says:
From the Politico story:
June 16, 2010, 10:07 amAllan Leedy says:
Why this self-imposed limitation?
June 16, 2010, 10:31 amMark Byron says:
That would be customary, but I don’t think it would be a requirement for a judge to resign in order to seek elected office. He’d have to resign if elected, but then President Thomas would name Justice Thomas’ replacement.
I don’t see a constitutional bar from a Federal judge running for elective office, unless I’m missing something.
June 16, 2010, 10:41 amBama 1L says:
I assumed it was a joke because of the byline.
June 16, 2010, 10:45 amBama 1L says:
I hope your charity will be rewarded someday.
June 16, 2010, 10:47 amFrank Drackman says:
I’d kinda like to know who DID put that pubic hair on his coke can…sounds sorta like a Hate Crime to me…
and how is asking who put a pubic hair on your coke can a form of sexual Herassmeant???
Supreme Court Judges are more powerful anyway, who remembers anything Jimmy Carter did? Except beat a defenseless Rabbit to death..
Frank
June 16, 2010, 11:06 amSteve says:
That would be customary, but I don’t think it would be a requirement for a judge to resign in order to seek elected office.
Canon 5(B) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides: “A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.”
I don’t really know what the penalty is for a violation of the Code of Conduct; I assume it doesn’t have the force of law, but that violations can be punished by fellow members of the judiciary or by impeachment (but then again, anything can be grounds for impeachment if you want it to be). However, clearly there’s more than just “tradition” at issue here, and it’s extremely unlikely that Justice Thomas (or any other federal judge) would commit a blatant violation of the Code of Conduct just to run for political office.
June 16, 2010, 11:16 amCan't find a good name says:
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges says, “A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.”
While this code doesn’t actually apply to the Supreme Court justices, I think it’s safe to say that Thomas would come under harsh criticism if he tried to run for office while remaining on the bench. (On the other hand, he gets harsh criticism all the time anyway.)
June 16, 2010, 11:18 amyankee says:
The problem isn’t the Constitution, it’s judicial ethics. See Canon 5, “A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity.”
June 16, 2010, 11:22 amJeff Black says:
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the way the left treats black conservatives. Anyone remember the way the left treated Janice Rogers Brown? At least with Thomas, there was an appearance of impropriety that might have given some justification for the attacks. JRB didn’t do anything other than be black and conservative.
June 16, 2010, 11:35 amJeff Black says:
I don’t know where you work, but in my workplace, what Bill Clinton did would be considered sexual harassment and would get him fired.
June 16, 2010, 11:43 amDavid Z. says:
The question I don’t see being asked is whether Thomas has the executive experience required for the job. The current president is proving that the lack of such experience can lead to disaster. I would have to believe Thomas is completely unqualified to serve as president because of that lack of experience.
June 16, 2010, 11:52 amFloridan says:
geokstr: “Or it could even be that Democrats and their Lewinsky’s in the press make up “fake but accurate” racist quotes to put in the mouths of Republicans, or even that their congressmen are willing to lie about racial epithets being hurled at them, or that Republicans can be called racists with impunity simply for disagreeing with Obama’s agenda, or even that the MSM will cover up the racist comments of Democrats.”
This sounds like the script from an old Saturday Night Live routine, in which John Belushi reads a commentary, getting more and more agitated, until he finally falls out of the chair.
June 16, 2010, 12:05 pmSteve says:
Anyone remember the way the left treated Janice Rogers Brown? At least with Thomas, there was an appearance of impropriety that might have given some justification for the attacks. JRB didn’t do anything other than be black and conservative.
Your argument is that black voters vote Democratic because Democrats treat black conservatives badly? You’re going to have to spell it out a little better for me.
I actually don’t remember how the left treated Brown, other than opposing her for being very conservative. If you call the New Deal a “socialist revolution,” odds are that liberals are going to try to keep you from getting a lifetime appointment as a federal judge, regardless of color.
I do remember that back when Democrats were blocking all those Bush judges, conservatives were simultaneously arguing that Dems were blocking Brown because she’s black, Priscilla Owen because she’s female, and William Pryor because he’s religious. While it may, in fact, be true that the left simply hates everyone, the result in practice was mostly comical.
June 16, 2010, 12:20 pmGordo says:
Has Clarence Thomas ever actually confirmed that he is a Republican? :)
On a more serious note, I wouldn’t vote for him, but if it saves us from having Sarah Palin anointed as a serious Republican presidential candidate, then I’m all for it.
June 16, 2010, 12:40 pmLou Gots says:
I hope this is intended as a joke. Flip the Supreme Court, just so we can say we’re replacing one AA baby with another. We’re getting rid of the Effendi because he’s an incompetent, corrupt charletan, not because of his color.
June 16, 2010, 12:45 pmBill Altreuter says:
I don’t think you would have to quote Thomas’ opinions out of context to damage his candidacy. I leave it to others to parse whether his jurisprudence deviates from the best current thinking among the legal elite, but he’s pretty far from mainstream out in the world where regular people live and work.
June 16, 2010, 1:03 pmSecond history says:
Please do please please please…….
June 16, 2010, 1:18 pmlgm says:
Even if Thomas is a good Supreme Court Justice, which I doubt, you have no reason to think he would be a good president. By all reports, he is almost completely passive in his role as justice, rarely asking questions in public or making suggestions in private. Such a low energy person would make even Bush, Jr. look hard working.
June 16, 2010, 1:26 pmJeff Black says:
No, the argument is that some black conservatives are afraid to run for political office because of how the left treats black conservatives.
See the cartoon in this article for a little reminder: http://www.blackcommentator.com/54/54_female_clarence.html. Do you really think that a white conservative nominee would have been treated this way? Cartoons complete with a huge afro and overstated lips? Would a white judicial nominee be called “Uncle Tom”?
It’s not the fact that she was opposed that is disgusting- it’s the way she was opposed.
Pot meet kettle.
June 16, 2010, 1:49 pmSteve says:
See the cartoon in this article for a little reminder: http://www.blackcommentator.com/54/54_female_clarence.html. Do you really think that a white conservative nominee would have been treated this way? Cartoons complete with a huge afro and overstated lips? Would a white judicial nominee be called “Uncle Tom”?
Presumably, no, black people would not refer to a white nominee as “Uncle Tom.” The fact that the so-called black community has very harsh things to say about black conservatives is indisputable, but I don’t think it’s reflective of how “the left” in general treated Janice Rogers Brown.
Do I believe there are a large number of black conservatives who are intimidated from running for office as Republicans because of the scorn they would face from other blacks? Well, it’s a more plausible theory than the suggestion that they don’t run as Republicans because they’re afraid the Democratic Party will have them assassinated.
I think the lever people choose to pull in the voting booth is pretty telling as far as divining their true political preferences. The fact is that for as long as I’ve been alive, the vast majority of black people choose to associate with the Democratic Party. In my opinion, one reason that has remained true is that most Republicans are in deep denial about the reasons and prefer to advance theories like “Democrats buy off blacks with welfare payments,” “the concept of Republican racism is just a lie invented by Democrats,” and, I guess, “blacks are just intimidated by other blacks into supporting Democrats, even in the secrecy of the voting booth.”
June 16, 2010, 2:19 pmEH says:
White men are hamstrung in their paths to power. Republicans are desperate to find someone to represent them who isn’t one (Palin, Steele), and Democrats are unable to find a white (“traditional”) leader who doesn’t wave his cock around everwhere. Perhaps some affirmative action is in order.
June 16, 2010, 2:25 pmBob from Ohio says:
You are mis-staing the arguments.
Being a court of appeals judge (at least before Kagan) appeared to have become a de facto qualification for a Supreme Court appointment.
Some conservatives argued that Owens and Brown were being opposed because the left thought they would be appealing Supreme Court apointments and sought to sidetrack the future appointments by denying them the appeals posts.
Easier to oppose a black woman in the lower profile nomination. Most people neither know or care who gets an appeals post. Even the unpolitical general public pays attention to S/C apointments so it is harder to filibuster, you have to be sure you can articulate a valid reason or the opposition might backfire.
June 16, 2010, 2:28 pmSteve says:
You are mis-stating the arguments.
No, those were very real arguments. Perhaps among us elite folks the argument is “Democrats want to block minority conservatives so they can’t get a promotion later,” but on the street the argument is very much “Democrats just can’t stand to see a minority conservative get ahead.”
Anyway, surely you’re not arguing Democrats blocked William Pryor because they were particularly afraid that “a person of faith” would be an especially appealing Supreme Court appointment. No, the argument was that Democrats didn’t want people of faith on the courts, period.
June 16, 2010, 2:34 pmathEIst says:
Stephen Lathrop: The main problem with a Thomas run is it would deprive Antonin Scalia. Check the record, and you will see that Scalia follows Thomas’ lead in almost every case on which they write opinions, with Scalia only sometimes asserting a bit of independence and showing a little liberal variation from Thomas steadfast conservatism. Overall, Scalia votes the way Thomas votes. They are joined at the hip, and Scalia would be lost without Thomas on the court showing Scalia what to decide.
Except Thomas wrote “if the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to criminalize intrastate non-commerce, this has ceased to be a nations of laws” in Lopez/Raich without(sadly) Scalia following.
June 16, 2010, 2:42 pmJeff Black says:
I fixed it for you.
June 16, 2010, 2:51 pmSteve says:
I fixed it for you.
Thanks. I’m sorry the other points escaped you.
June 16, 2010, 3:00 pmHieronymous says:
For anyone that knows even the slightest about Justice Thomas’s personality, the thought of him running for president is absurd.
First and foremost, he savors the relative anonymity of being a justice . . . he’s fondly spoken of how he loves blending in with crowds while touring the country in his RV, and how he’s rarely recognized (besides lawyers, most Americans probably haven’t kept up to date with how he’s aged from the muscular young man he was in 1992). Obviously, that privacy would be forever lost if he ran for president.
Secondly, he remains scarred and embittered by the horrendous confirmation circus he endured in ’92. Read his excellent memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, and at the end he sighs that being confirmed to the Court was a Pyrrhic victory; he asks the reader whether it was it worth it to lose his good name and dignity forever.
Thirdly, from the same book it’s clear he dislikes politics and most politicians. Former Senator James Danforth, a true gentleman and his old boss, is held up by Thomas as a model of what a politician should be. Of course, there are no Jim Danforths anymore. Thomas decried the doublespeak, compromise, and outright lies of most politicians. I just don’t think he would ever voluntarily lower himself into such depths.
Finally, read this insightful 2007 interview with the man. Does this sound like a man who wants to be president? http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_11/b4025080.htm
June 16, 2010, 3:06 pmJohn Herbison says:
If Clarence Thomas ran for office, would all the Federalist Society types stop genuflecting long enough to vote?
Whom should he choose as a running mate? (Monica Lewinsky is old enough now. Anyone suppose she has learned to swallow since becoming famous?)
June 16, 2010, 3:21 pmPlugInMonster says:
The Republicans will be the “part of racists” to the end of time. The media-types have done their good work. I don’t know a single liberal in Greenwich Village that thinks a Republican isn’t slightly reptilian in nature.
June 16, 2010, 3:27 pmJohn Herbison says:
Hey! Let’s not defame reptiles here.
June 16, 2010, 3:37 pmCJColucci says:
The GOP is not allowed to elect blacks to high office
If the GOP has any such inclinations, that fact has eluded me and a lot of other folks. And if it has such inclinations and is put off by fear of people outside its own party, I’d think any Republican would be ashamed to admit it.
June 16, 2010, 4:28 pmBob from Ohio says:
Did you notice that I didn’t mention Pryor (except as part of your quote).
“the argument was that Democrats didn’t want people of faith on the courts, period”
Of course, that has the benefit of being true, if you define “people of faith” as white protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists. The left is afraid those types have cooties.
June 16, 2010, 5:03 pmManju says:
While it may seem like a lifetime ago, there was a moment there, early in the bush admin, where the republicans color-blind approach threatened the dems monopoly on minority votes. Bush had put tougher a very colorful and sexy staff, and more importantly, people like Gonzo, Miers, and Karen Hughes were close and valued advisors…in contrast to the habit of tokenism.
Powell and Rice, because of their extreme gravitas, were pivotal figures in American race relations and probably had a lot to do with Obama’s rise. Beginning with Powell’s wonderful “cut off the head of the snake” moment during Bush I’s reign , Americans became acclimated to seeing AAs in positions of extreme authority. Better still, unlike Clarence Thomas or Gerry Ferraro, it was a stretch to say they were AffAct candidates. The republican’s race-neutral approach was bearing fruit, as the only mainstream Americans who appeared upset along racial lines were some leftists, like Harry Belafonte and Pat Oliphant.
On the policy front, Republicans were putting dems on the defensive with policies focused on self-help. Globalization and Outsourcing helped nations like India and China free themselves from the shackles of socialism, much to the chagrin of non-Clinonesque dems and their traditional base of labor unions, dixiecrats, and nativists. Suddenly talk about disparate outcomes as racism stopped in left-wing circles. Cutting edge programs like school choice, micro-loans, welfare-to-work, free enterprise zones, social venture capital, on top off traditional family values (no kids out of marriage as a solution to poverty) were much more inline with right-wing ideology than left. Smart dems like Clinton jumped aboard.
Meanwhile, the dems brand of race politics had left them not only with a bunch of failed social welfare schemes, but an array of outdated and buffoonish characters, like Jackson and Sharpton and perhaps personified recently by the clownish Roland Burris and seething reverse-racist Bobby Rush, whose hatred for Obama he can barely contain.
On top of that, Rove and the defacto open borders Bush were looking to rewrite the electoral map by courting Hispanics, using their social conservatism (abortion, gay rights, religion) as the calling card. Indeed, Bush managed to take home a jawdropping 44% of Hispanics in ’04. Had this persisted it would’ve redefined the American electorate but ultimately it fell victim to the law and order and jingoistic right wing. Then the bush presidency crashed with 2 failing wars and a deep recession.
And worse still, Obama seized the passion of the civil rights movement, departed from the extremism of the cult-of-vicimology left with his cosby/oprah-like self-help pitch, drove the right-wing into looney racist conspiracy theory territory (Birtherism) and ultimately drove the republican party into non-sensical ideological purity, ended their brief flirtation with racial minorities.
And so that’s where we find ourselves today.
June 16, 2010, 5:53 pmSteve says:
Of course, that has the benefit of being true, if you define “people of faith” as white protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists.
Sure, that’s why the Democrats filibuster all the evangelical appointees, except they don’t. Heck, Harriet Miers was more popular with the opposition party than with her own.
June 16, 2010, 6:01 pmdesertman says:
Ha!!!!! Obama has set the dem party back 40 yrs. and the chance of another black in the oval 50-60yrs.
June 16, 2010, 6:13 pmAndrewphus says:
June 16, 2010, 6:40 pmManju says:
For the sake of argument, lets assume this is true. If another black cannot win the oval office for another 50-60 years, presumably because the Obama presidency is a failure, then aren’t you conceding that America, presumably white Americans because they make up most of the electorate, is deeply racist?
After all, Carter’s failed presidency in no way affected the ability of white men, even southern white men, to win the white house. but one black fails and, by your own account, this means all black candidates will suffer….since voters will assume blacks can’t lead.
the only logical position for you to take now would be to side with far Left of the political spectrum on the issue of race, because you’ve essentially conceded this nation is deeply racist.
June 16, 2010, 9:07 pmzuch says:
Well, except for the fact that they do. See J.C. Watts, Ken Blackwell, etc. But for some strange reason, that doesn’t seem to help them much with blacks. Maybe blacks don’t vote just “skin”, eh?
Cheers,
June 16, 2010, 9:40 pmzuch says:
Projection? IIRC, threats handled by the Secret Service have pretty much doubled.
Cheers,
June 16, 2010, 9:41 pmzuch says:
The Star??? You spend too much time in supermarket checkout lines, methinks.
Cheers,
June 16, 2010, 9:46 pmSteve says:
I had let that one pass, zuch, but it’s pretty amazing that Houston Lawyer, an individual of intelligence, lumps Gore into the same category as known philanderers like Clinton and Edwards based upon a single rumor from a supermarket tabloid. I guess the psychological phenomenon at issue is that when you hate someone, you’re inclined to buy whatever negative thing someone says about them. I somehow doubt he ascribed the same credibility to the Star’s report that Sarah Palin is on the brink of divorce. What’s next? Is Obama sleeping with Bat Boy?
June 16, 2010, 10:25 pmBrian Macker says:
We don’t need Clarence Thomas. We need an economist. We need Thomas Sowell.
June 16, 2010, 10:33 pmManju says:
they did intially, but have since dropped to normal levels.
June 16, 2010, 10:49 pmChrisTS says:
Please tell me that ALL of this is a joke. Thomas? Holy moly.
June 16, 2010, 11:15 pmSarcastro says:
Or we go long term and start a breeding program. Thomas x Rice
Or Steele x Keys!
Really any black conservative will do. Maybe if we painted Palin black…
June 16, 2010, 11:31 pmChrisTS says:
Now you’re talkin’.
June 16, 2010, 11:41 pmDave N. says:
It’s John Danforth.
June 17, 2010, 12:47 amHieronymous says:
Dave N.
Quite right . . . John and Jack somehow got confused with James and Jim. He’s a fine man and was an excellent senator regardless.
June 17, 2010, 1:34 amVinny B. says:
Clarence Thomas is not even qualified for the Supreme Court, let alone the Presidency. He should have been put in jail for purgery after his confirmation hearing, as it rivaled the Oliver North hearings and any George W. Bush speech for the worst public display of lying in American history. His decisions have been viciously anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-minority. The worst is his hatred of affirmative action, which he owes his college admissions and Supreme Court seat to. If he ran for President, he’d make Alan Keyes look like a serious candidate, so I hope he runs.
June 17, 2010, 1:36 amJohn Herbison says:
If Clarence Thomas were elected president (or anointed a la Dubya), think of what we could save on Secret Service protection. After all, he’s already walked away from a lynching.
June 17, 2010, 1:58 amManju says:
Look, if you prefer your sugar with the molasses still on, that’s fine…but don’t put anyone in jail for removing it.
June 17, 2010, 2:02 amJohn Herbison says:
It’s an old joke, but do you know why then-Judge Thomas appeared so confused at his confirmation hearings in 1991?
Because until then he thought her ass was two words.
I wish that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia had submitted the conflicting testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to a grand jury in order to decide who should have been charged with and tried for perjury.
June 17, 2010, 2:06 amManju says:
Thanks, that explains how Clinton sounded so truthful when he claimed he never engaged in sexual her ass mount.
June 17, 2010, 3:53 amShelbyC says:
Sounds pretty qualified to me. Maybe he’ll generate a budget surplus.
June 17, 2010, 5:12 amCJColucci says:
Manju:
June 17, 2010, 11:51 amLast I looked, Powell and Rice were appointees. Even when Powell was one of the most respected men in the country, with broad bipartisan appeal, he never came close to being a serious candidate for high elective office in his own party. And Rice has disappeared from view. She will never run for anything, and there’s nothing left to appoint her to if the Republicans come back any time soon.
Randy says:
“No, the argument is that some black conservatives are afraid to run for political office because of how the left treats black conservatives.”
Well, anyone who is so scared of how political opponents will treat them when they run for office shouldn’t consider running for office of any kind, even dog catcher. Politics is for the thick skinned, and if you can’t take the heat, don’t try cookin’ in the kitchen.
June 17, 2010, 12:49 pmHieronymous says:
John Herbison:
Ugh. I bet Erwin Chemerinsky is STILL foisting that old joke on bar exam candidates during his BarBri lectures. Jeff Toobin is another person to whom the very thought of Justice Clarence Thomas is apparently hilarious, judging from his various jabs and jibes at him in various public settings.
June 17, 2010, 1:12 pmManju says:
Well, so was George W Bush.
June 17, 2010, 3:03 pmzuch says:
Another one for you: Bill Randall. You folks get the cream of the crop, I tellya.
Cheers,
June 17, 2010, 9:13 pmzuch says:
Assuming arguendo that facts as you state: Why would they double, eh? Does that fact support Brett Bellmore’s thesis?
Cheers,
June 17, 2010, 9:17 pmManju says:
I provided a source.
Becasue he’s black.
Its not incompatable.
June 17, 2010, 9:47 pmzuch says:
Where? I didn’t see anything.
Ahhh, yes. That, and the RW is full of crazy foamers. Two not incompatible explanations.
Brett’s thesis is that Democrats would try anything to stop Thomas up to and including assassination. Does the fact that threats increased on Obama taking office support that thesis? Or does it indeed suggest something else? Are Democrats threatening to assassinate Obama?
Cheers,
June 18, 2010, 2:39 pmManju says:
Oh sorry, thought I linked.
Yes,but the RW being full or craziers is not incompatable with the left being full of it too. Indeed, the political affiliation of the crazees is often surprising, or not too surprising to anyone with knowledge of the dixiecrats. For eample, the LA Judge who denied an interracial couple a marriage license was a registerd dem until Obama arrived on the scene.
I don’t neceesarily agree with him but its not that far-fetched. A jew Killed Yitzhak Rabin, a Hindu killed Gandhi, a black nationalist killed Malcolm X. All 3 asassins thought their target to be an “uncle Tom” of sorts, betraying their identity group. Its a powerful motivation and theoretically at least, a black republican could fall victim to it.
Yes. The only known political affiation of the Hutaree Militia is democratic.
June 18, 2010, 3:19 pmSee, why do people have to put these things into my head « The Lyssa says:
[...] Ilya Somin doesn’t think it’s a good idea for mostly the same reasons I don’t. (No real discussion of how he would actually be as president, though). 35.045630 -85.309680 [...]
June 19, 2010, 2:36 pmMore on ‘Clarence Thomas in 2012′ « Attorneys Directory says:
[...] that Justice Clarence Thomas consider a presidential run in 2012 has caused some chatter in the legal and political blogosphere (as well as the ATL comments section, where the commenter [...]
June 22, 2010, 1:39 amMilhouse says:
I don’t see any constitutional reason why he would have to resign from the Court even if he were to win. If John Marshall could be both Chief Justice and Secretary of State for a month, why shouldn’t someone be both a Supreme Court justice and president?
Of course it would be impossible for any one person to do both jobs. But that’s not a constitutional argument, just a practical one.
June 27, 2010, 2:27 pm