The Columbus Dispatch
Justice Thomas’ lusterless tenure began with a lie. It keeps getting worse. |Opinion
Michael M. Lederman – July 19, 2022
Dr. Michael M. Lederman is professor of medicine (emeritus) and biomedical ethics at Case Western Reserve University. He is editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Pathogens and Immunity.
Clarence Thomas should not be on the Supreme Court.
He was approved to sit on the court by a timid Democrat majority Senate that was afraid to conclude that this Black man had sexually harassed a colleague, Anita Hill.
The truth of the matter is undetermined but to my eye and in the eyes of many, Professor Anita Hill (and two other women) were telling us the truth and Judge Thomas was lying.
A terrible start for a Supreme Court justice and it did not get any better. His tenure on the Supreme Court has been lusterless. For many years, he would not even write an opinion and his writings have been largely pedestrian or extremist.
His wife – Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a refugee from an 80’s cult – is a danger to America who has placed Justice Thomas proximate to sedition. Ginni Thomas has worked relentlessly to undermine the outcome of the 2020 presidential election using lies and misrepresentations to urge electors to resist the legitimate transition of government.
More: Clarence Thomas’ wife asks Anita Hill for apology
This is an embarrassment to the court.
But even worse is Clarence Thomas’s refusal to recuse himself from deliberations that address this very election.
Most recently, Thomas delivered the majority opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, finding that the right to carry concealed handguns in public for the purpose of self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
More: How to submit guest opinion columns to the Columbus Dispatch
Justice Thomas (and other conservative justices) deliberately misunderstand the Second Amendment. None of the other nine amendments to the Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights requires justification; those are self-evident and fundamental.
The Second Amendment alone has an explanatory introduction: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” the Amendment begins, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Nowhere in the Amendment is self-defense mentioned.
More: Supreme Court justices don’t have a code of ethics. Hundreds of judges say that’s a problem
If the framers of Bill of Rights understood that that the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental, why was this unique introduction even warranted?
In the 2008 Heller decision, the unique importance of this introduction is simply ignored as nearly accidental and a labyrinth of decisions is used to link the Amendment to the use of arms in activities such as self-defense. When applied to the original words of the framers, this is sophistry.
Thomas is marinated in conflicts of interest that render impartiality risible. He has been a headliner for the Eagle Forum (an anti-abortion organization) and the conservative Council for National Policy.
He gave a keynote speech at a fundraiser for the conservative Manhattan Institute and has a longstanding relationship with the Heritage Foundation.
His wife has prominent roles in a number of conservative activist organizations and she was actively engaged in promoting the Jan. 6, 2021, Ellipse rally that ultimately resulted in the violent assault on the Capitol. Mrs. Thomas has given at least $13,000 to support Republicans seeking elected office.
More: What ties does Ginni Thomas, the Supreme Court justice’s wife, have to Jan. 6?
Apparently, Thomas’ colleagues have been unable or unwilling to get Thomas to recuse himself when conflicted.
His service on the court offers a compelling argument for term limits, if not impeachment.
Dr. Michael M. Lederman is professor of medicine (emeritus) and biomedical ethics at Case Western Reserve University. He is editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Pathogens and Immunity.