17 Things on Clarence Thomas’ Mind During Rare P
Post# of 52061
Posted On: 10/27/2016 6:54:27 PM
17 Things on Clarence Thomas’ Mind During Rare Public Remarks
It is important for the Supreme Court not only to base its decisions on the Constitution but to issue opinions that address the questions of everyday Americans, a relaxed Clarence Thomas said Wednesday night as an honored guest speaker at The Heritage Foundation.
In a deep, resonant voice, Thomas talked early in the hourlong program about the wisdom of writing opinions in plain language, of making the Constitution “accessible.”
“I think we hide it from them when we write in language that is inaccessible,” Thomas said. “We owe it to people to present to them their Constitution in a way they can understand it, to enfranchise them.”
Supreme Court justices, he said, are “obligated to work with” what is in the Constitution, and owe Americans a clear explanation of their decisions based on it.
Sunday marked the 25th anniversary of Thomas’ swearing-in.
Thomas, who drew an early laugh by saying he is “not a navel-gazer,” is the ninth eminent jurist to be asked to deliver the think tank’s Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture, and the first to do so in a conversational format rather than in formal remarks.
The annual lecture is named for Story, the celebrated advocate of judicial restraint who served 33 years on the Supreme Court following his appointment by President James Madison.
Thomas, 68, spoke casually as he answered questions posed by John Malcolm, director of Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson senior legal fellow.
The two men sat on a stage before an audience of 200 guests, including about 30 of Thomas’ former law clerks, in the think tank’s Allison Auditorium.
Recalling his long association with Justice Antonin Scalia, the fellow staunch conservative and “originalist” justice who died unexpectedly in February, Thomas characterized him as “pretty aggressive on the Fourth Amendment.” In one opinion, he said, Scalia referred to Thomas’ own view as “a liberty-destroying cocktail.”
At a later meal, he said, Scalia hesitated over what alcoholic beverage to order. Thomas broke up his friend by suggesting he have “a liberty-destroying cocktail.”
Meese, the former U.S. attorney general and Heritage’s Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow emeritus, introduced Thomas in his role as host.
The previous leader of the legal center at Heritage that bears his name, Meese hailed Thomas as “one of the clearest writers we have ever had on the Supreme Court.”
Thomas returned the compliment, referring to Meese’s grace under pressure as counsellor to Reagan and, later, as attorney general.
Thomas, the second black justice to sit on the court, laughed heartily at times. Once was while retelling the story of being approached—during one of his annual trips to Gettysburg with law clerks—by a man who asked him to sign one of his opinions.
Agreeing that the Civil War was a pivotal point in American history, he quipped to Malcolm, who is white: “If Lee had won, that would have been a problem. It would have been a problem more for me than you.”
It is important for the Supreme Court not only to base its decisions on the Constitution but to issue opinions that address the questions of everyday Americans, a relaxed Clarence Thomas said Wednesday night as an honored guest speaker at The Heritage Foundation.
In a deep, resonant voice, Thomas talked early in the hourlong program about the wisdom of writing opinions in plain language, of making the Constitution “accessible.”
“I think we hide it from them when we write in language that is inaccessible,” Thomas said. “We owe it to people to present to them their Constitution in a way they can understand it, to enfranchise them.”
Supreme Court justices, he said, are “obligated to work with” what is in the Constitution, and owe Americans a clear explanation of their decisions based on it.
Sunday marked the 25th anniversary of Thomas’ swearing-in.
Thomas, who drew an early laugh by saying he is “not a navel-gazer,” is the ninth eminent jurist to be asked to deliver the think tank’s Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture, and the first to do so in a conversational format rather than in formal remarks.
The annual lecture is named for Story, the celebrated advocate of judicial restraint who served 33 years on the Supreme Court following his appointment by President James Madison.
Thomas, 68, spoke casually as he answered questions posed by John Malcolm, director of Heritage’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson senior legal fellow.
The two men sat on a stage before an audience of 200 guests, including about 30 of Thomas’ former law clerks, in the think tank’s Allison Auditorium.
Recalling his long association with Justice Antonin Scalia, the fellow staunch conservative and “originalist” justice who died unexpectedly in February, Thomas characterized him as “pretty aggressive on the Fourth Amendment.” In one opinion, he said, Scalia referred to Thomas’ own view as “a liberty-destroying cocktail.”
At a later meal, he said, Scalia hesitated over what alcoholic beverage to order. Thomas broke up his friend by suggesting he have “a liberty-destroying cocktail.”
Meese, the former U.S. attorney general and Heritage’s Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow emeritus, introduced Thomas in his role as host.
The previous leader of the legal center at Heritage that bears his name, Meese hailed Thomas as “one of the clearest writers we have ever had on the Supreme Court.”
Thomas returned the compliment, referring to Meese’s grace under pressure as counsellor to Reagan and, later, as attorney general.
Thomas, the second black justice to sit on the court, laughed heartily at times. Once was while retelling the story of being approached—during one of his annual trips to Gettysburg with law clerks—by a man who asked him to sign one of his opinions.
Agreeing that the Civil War was a pivotal point in American history, he quipped to Malcolm, who is white: “If Lee had won, that would have been a problem. It would have been a problem more for me than you.”
(0)
(0)