Defending Thomas (and God Bless Justice Thomas for doing his job and honoring his oath)

[Patricia M. McBride]

Defending Thomas

When asked recently what he thought of Justice Clarence Thomas, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press," "I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice." Reid went so far as to say that Thomas was "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court" and that his opinions were "poorly written."

Reid's comments came during speculation over the possible successor to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, should he retire soon. Aside from the fact that Reid was disrespectful, we must ask why a Democrat would go on national television and criticize the second black Supreme Court justice in history while praising fellow-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia as "one smart guy"?

Savvy liberals like Reid are right to be more concerned with Thomas than Scalia because Thomas' natural-law jurisprudence represents the greatest threat to the liberal desire to replace limited, constitutional government with a regulatory-welfare state of unlimited powers.

Thomas is one of the few jurists today, conservative or otherwise, who understand and defend the principle that our rights come not from government but from a "Creator" and "the laws of nature and of nature's God," as our Declaration of Independence says, and that the purpose and power of government should therefore be limited to protecting our natural, God-given rights.

The left understands that if it is to succeed, these principles of constitutional government must be jettisoned, or at least redefined. Thomas' recourse not only to the text of the Constitution but specifically to the founders' natural-law defense of constitutional government is fatal to liberalism's goal.

The most sophisticated and enduring critique of U.S. constitutional government was first made by Progressive-era liberals at the turn of the 20th century. Their main charge was that the Constitution was old and outdated and therefore irrelevant to modern times and modern problems. Woodrow Wilson, for example, insisted that unlike the physical universe, the political universe contains no immutable principles or laws. "Government … is a living thing … accountable to Darwin," explained Wilson. The Constitution, therefore, must be "Darwinian" as well—it too must grow and evolve.

From the liberal view, liberty cannot be a natural right, protected by a government of limited powers, because there are no natural rights. As liberal political scientist Charles Merriam explained in 1920, the "natural law and natural rights" of the founders had been discarded by intellectuals "with practical unanimity." Instead, "the state … is the creator of liberty."

Bigger government means more liberty, not less. "It is denied," Merriam concluded, "that any limit can be set to governmental activity," and therefore the Constitution's original intent, which limited government power, "no longer seems sufficient."

The liberal critique of the Constitution has been repeated so long and with such intensity that it has become orthodoxy in our law schools, courtrooms and legislative halls. By 1986, liberal Justice William Brennan could easily dismiss the Constitution out of hand because it belonged "to a world that is dead and gone."

Before Anita Hill took the spotlight, the most controversial part of Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991 stemmed from allegations that he had invoked the n-word—the natural law. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee hardly knew how to respond, so alien was the founders' vocabulary. Perhaps this is why Reid finds Thomas' opinions "poorly written."

A generation of law students and politicians has been trained in "legal realism," which is nothing but liberal contempt for the Constitution dressed in academic garb. For liberals who believe rights come from and can be revoked by government and judges, a high court justice talking about natural rights is an embarrassment.

The size, scope and purposes of our government are no longer anchored in and limited by our Constitution. For conservatives who want to restore limited government, their first order of business is to restore the authority of the Constitution's original intent. The American people need to be reminded of the source of their rights and persuaded that limited government is good; that the principles of the Constitution—which are the natural-law principles of the Declaration of Independence—are timeless, not time-bound; that without those principles, the noble ends set forth in the Constitution's preamble can never be achieved.

Of the current Supreme Court justices, only Thomas has offered a defense of the natural-law principles of the Constitution, a defense that nearly cost him a seat on the court and continues to elicit the kind of disdain recently voiced by Reid. Conservatives should unite behind Justice Thomas and defend his natural-law jurisprudence because nothing less will resuscitate the Constitution they hope to save

Link: http://www.claremont.org/publications/precepts/id.79/precept_detail...

[Patricia M. McBride]

Very interesting and another sign of how diverse we tea party members are. I freely admit I don't read supreme court justices findings unless it is directly related to something I have great interest in and then, would have to say I am not knowledgable enough to know if what I am reading is well written by the standards you speak about or not. Do you speak about these folks and how they write and what you consider good and bad or have you written something about it. Certainly, it is very interesting, and I am ashamed to say I am a sign waver and verbal person. Although I do read many articles every day about what is going on at the federal, state and local level, I am stretched so to speak at this point and can't really add something like this as well and am glad we have people like you who are doing so.

Thank you very much for sharing this information with the rest of us. Sure could have used someone as elequent at city hall yesterday (certainly the "non political professional" library folks could have used someone to know the smugness off a bit now that they have convinced city hall to give them their once again bloated budget in tact after using a "lobbiest" (nothing political there right?). I hope John that you will join the fight going on right now to hold the line on new taxes here in Jacksonville, we could sure use another person who is as knowledgable in your area of expertise as you seem to be (one can not read all these finding and not come away not knowing a great deal about the law)!

[Patricia M. McBride]

John, I want to apologize for being MIA today and won't be able to really read your answers tonight, but promise to come back in the afternoon and really read what you have written (going to the city council finance committee meeting in the AM or would come then). Just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring the blog! Have a good evening.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Good question, Billie. I wish I had asked.

[FCTP]

John: So who do you like on the Supreme Court?

[Patricia M. McBride]

And then, do you also believe the unions should have been exempted from the legislation that this very liberal congress and senate put together to over ride the supreme court ruling of the majority of the court. I am horribly sorry, but we may have to agree to disagree on Thomas. He gets that the government does not give us our rights, nor can they take them away, and our rights come from a far higher power. He rules according to that premise and the constitutional which also indicates our rights are God given and not at the whim of any man so to speak. That said, how can Obama or any other human being have the right to take the right to speak freely away from anyone (even corporations)??

[Patricia M. McBride]

Would you prefer to have another University professor who thinks the bill of rights doesn't exist as part of what she should consider or thinks global law trumps constitutional law or perhaps someone who think "gut" feelings should dominate her rulings. Judge Thomas rules based on the constitution. I further disagree with you on corporations, which you are right about, they are entities, but they are entities run by people who should have a voice in what happens to their entities.