Amended Opinions: Justice Thomas DOES Care...

Article III Groupie has been revising and updating her last post, concerning the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote on the Roberts nomination, on an essentially constant basis since she issued it. Lots of readers have written A3G with helpful corrections and additions, which she has incorporated into the original post (including some new footnote material). (You can get the latest version of the post by hitting the "refresh" button on your web browser.)

The information that A3G is about to share, though, is really too good to be tacked on as an afterthought; it deserves to be highlighted in a separate post. In response to her speculation that Justice Clarence Thomas couldn't care less that he was confirmed by only a 52-48 margin, a reader wrote to A3G as follows:

[Justice Thomas] actually has a list of every senator and how they voted for him, with the ones that voted against him highlighted. [H]e enjoys showing it to clerks, and [he] goes on a rant about how horrible it was and that he'll never forget those senators' names.

Most interesting... The fact that CT actually keeps handy the Senate roll call on his SCOTUS confirmation vote is quite juicy. But A3G is not completely surprised to hear that Justice Thomas remains somewhat fixated on his 1991 confirmation fight. As she reported here (see item #7), Justice Thomas "enjoys talking about [his confirmation battle] around the Supreme Court building, like a veteran telling war stories, which might be surprising given its bitter and lurid nature."

A3G's advice to Justice Thomas: Let it go! While the treatment you were subjected to was certainly traumatic, it took place almost 15 years ago. You are now an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (with a lucrative book deal to boot). Your erstwhile nemesis, Anita Hill, is now a mere footnote in the annals of history -- on a par with, say, Monica Lewinsky...

So just get on with your (super-fabulous) life, Justice Thomas! Revel in your federal judicial celebrity; bask in the raves that your excellent Supreme Court opinions have justifiably earned for you. Attend lots of Federalist Society events, like Ted Olson's famous fete, and soak up the adoration of conservative judicial groupies. Put all the old ugliness behind you (with the help of a good therapist if necessary; A3G swears by hers). Remember: "He who laughs last, laughs best!"

Comments

[Eh Nonymous]

Wow, the A3G really is a cheerleader for conservatives! How sweet!

But we knew that already.

I like Thomas myself, but in the abstract; I like the idea that someone could suggest overturning cases that are more than 205 years old, because stare decisis should be disregarded when the conclusion is wrong. It's bracing. Not advisable, in the sense that overturning entrenched precedent older than the 14th Amendment would be like, well, overturning the 14th Amendment, but bracing.

In hard cold reality, I'm less a fan of Thomas. I like his dissent in Kelo; I like his dissent in Raich. Hey, nobody can be all wrong all the time.

While I am not surprised to hear that the Youngest Associate Justice has a book deal, I note that the "historical footnote," Anita Hill, who was the first black woman to be "lynched" by a committee of sneering arrogant white male Senators - and possibly the last, since most such key committees now have a token white female as well - already has a book out. I'm reading it now. Not bad at all. "Speaking Truth to Power." Not a good title if the target audience is conservatives like you. But still an interesting read, so far. Lots of background on her upbringing in the early chapters- unsurprising. She's not glamorous to interest you, I don't think, although the cover photo is quite becoming. Also, she was never an article 3 judge - quite beyond the scope of this blawg.

Nevertheless, she may in fact be a historical footnote - like Monica, for something she chose to do. Unlike Monica, not because of her sexual choices; rather, because someone (allegedly) said something disgusting and insulting to her, and she had the balls to repeat it. I don't know about you, but I respect that.

For further resources see, e.g., CNN 2005 article "Then and Now", linked from Wikipedia entry on Anita Hill.

---

On another note, you are and will probably remain one of my most favorite, if not the favorite, conservative pseudonymous blawger, as noted in my post Carnival of the Anonymous.

[Jenny]

Oooh, A3G, bold of you to equate Anita Hill with Monica Lewinsky. One might note that one is a law professor who was sexually harassed by her boss and was slandered in the national press for talking about it (including by some journalists who later openly admitted they were wrong), while the other is a handbag designer who once gave the President a blow job. Just sayin'.