This is becoming a daily exercise: Yet again, a supposedly mainstream media guy — the “expert” (read: supposedly “neutral”) legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin did a book review for the New Yorker about Clarence Thomas’s pre-Supremes autobiography, and it quickly gets to the nub of things in this nasty passage: Indeed, throughout his judicial career Thomas has, in the name of anti-élitism, shown a distinct solicitude for certain kinds of élites-say, for employers over employees, for government over individuals, for corporations over regulators, and for executioners over the condemned. Thomas’s tender concern for the problems of the powerful reveals itself, in the end, as a form of self-pity.
This is a smear, pure and simple. Not only that, but, as is typical, it misses the whole point of conservative jurisprudence. Toobin focuses on Thomas’ judicial work as if Thomas is a legislator choosing whom to favor, rather than as a judge who acts according to the law (process) rather than considering whom is or is not “helped” by his decisions (results). Frankly, the outright refusal to take conservative jurisprudence seriously enough so as to accurately and fairly represent what we say we are trying to do… is an act that is getting awfully old.
I’ll have more to say on this topic tomorrow, and will also cross-post at Confirm Them tomorrow.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?