The Volokh Conspiracy - Clarence Thomas Speaks at Bill of Rights Institute Banquet:

A few weeks back, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at the annual banquet of the 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 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) 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 an 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 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 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 "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.

Update:

C-Span has the video available on its site and I didn't find it when I searched for it. It is under the heading of "Justice Thomas on National Identity and Citizenship" which I just didn't recognize by the title and is here. It is worth watching and seeing it is quite different from the characterization suggested by Liptak.

	[Todd Zywicki, April 16, 2009 at 9:53am] Trackbacks Clarence Thomas Speaks at Bill of Rights Institute Banquet: A few weeks back, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at the annual banquet of the 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 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) 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 an 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 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 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 "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. Update: C-Span has the video available on its site and I didn't find it when I searched for it. It is under the heading of "Justice Thomas on National Identity and Citizenship" which I just didn't recognize by the title and is here. It is worth watching and seeing it is quite different from the characterization suggested by Liptak.