What Did Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Say?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is how to celebrate America’s 250^th birthday anniversary. Star Parker believes that learning about the Declaration of Independence is a good way to start the celebration. In her article published in The Daily Signal, she shared some material from a speech delivered by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas, Austin. 

The force of Thomas’ words does not just result from his deep understanding of what the United States is about, and how the Declaration of Independence defines it.

The force flows from Thomas’ personal reality. He has lived what the declaration is about. His words are not just the product of thought and study, but of Thomas’ entire life experience.

Thomas grew up poor in America’s Jim Crow South.

But he says, “Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that wreaked a bigotry, it was universally believed among those blacks with whom I lived and who had very little or no formal education, that in God’s eyes and under our Constitution, we were equal.”

“When you lived in a segregated world with palpable discrimination and the governments nearest to you enforced laws and customs that promoted unequal treatment, it was obvious that your rights or your dignity did not come from those governments, but rather from God,” he continued….

Thomas’ life, career, and education were trial by fire.

By the time he became chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the country had already been captured by progressivism, particularly on matters of race.

His principled adherence to the eternal God-given truths of the declaration, and refusal to fold to the progressive agenda – which he calls the “then-prevailing orthodoxy on race” – was a lonely battle, which left him under constant attack.

It was then he realized that carrying out the agenda was more than knowing the principles, but having the courage to fight, and even, if necessary, die for them.

Thomas notes that the principles stated in the opening of the declaration – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights” – could have gotten nowhere without the last paragraph of the declaration.

There the signers conclude “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

“What changed the world,” per Thomas, “was not the words, but the commitment and spirit of the people willing to labor, sacrifice, and even give their lives” for what Lincoln called at Gettysburg “the last full measure of devotion.”

Thomas asks, “Do any of us have what it took for our young soldiers to storm Normandy Beach, to fight at Guadalcanal, to later fight at Chosin Reservoir?”

He discusses the emergence of progressivism, which challenged the core principles of the Declaration. As Thomas notes, its pedigree is not American but was born in 19^th century Germany of Otto von Bismark.

It’s a worldview that rejects the notion that God-given truths govern our lives, but rather politics and government so-called experts.

It’s deeply ironic and unfortunate that the civil rights movement – a movement about human freedom, a movement about moving black people out from the distortions of political control, and to our regime of freedom defined by our declaration’s principles – itself saw progressivism as the answer to problems of race.

We are in a great struggle today for the future of our country.

The movement toward progressivism has delivered to us a new time with massive government, deficits, debts, and bankrupt entitlement programs. The assault of progressivism on the God-given principles of the [D]eclaration of Independence has also taken a great toll on our culture, with the traditional family and our birth of children in dangerous decline.

To restore the vitality of our nation, we for sure today need a “new birth of freedom.”

A good start for all is to listen to Thomas’ message. 

 

Why Is Progressivism So Wrong for America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns enemies of the U.S. Constitution. This year America celebrates 250 years since the time that patriots first declared independence from Great Britain. It may be time for us to declare independence once again.

In his article published in The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil reported on a speech given by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The talk was part of celebrating America’s 250^th anniversary, and it exposed “the greatest threat to the Declaration of Independence today – the ideology of Progressivism.” 

“Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement – with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War – to openly oppose the principles of the declaration,” the justice said in a speech at the University of Texas at Austin Wednesday. “Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident.”

With his characteristic brilliance, Thomas cut through the Orwellian masquerade of Progressivism to reveal what it truly is – a fundamentally backward movement. By rejecting the solid footing of the declaration, Progressivism opened America to central planning and administrative rule.

While the declaration bases governmental authority on the consent of the governed and God creating human beings with inalienable rights, under Progressivism, “liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.”

Explaining Progressivism

Thomas noted that President Woodrow “Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired.

Progressives like Wilson argued that America need[s] to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power.”

Yet Thomas also quoted President Calvin Coolidge, who delivered a powerful address on the 150th anniversary of the declaration.

“If all men are created equal, that is final,” Coolidge said. “If they are endowed with unalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress, can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which they can proceed historically is not forward but backward.”

The Rotten Fruit of Progressivism

Thomas laid out exactly how backward Progressivism would take America.

“Progressives believed that Darwinian science, the idea of ever-advancing progress written into biology itself, had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races,” he noted.

“It was only a small step for Wilson to re-segregate the federal workforce. It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce, upheld by my court in Buck v. Bell.”

The declaration’s central claims trace back to thinkers like John Locke, and Thomas noted that “European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world with its weak, decentralized government and strong individual rights.”

“But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bonds for the supposedly enlightened world of [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich] Hegel, [Karl] Marx, and their followers,” Thomas said.

“Fascism – which, after all, was national socialism – triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions,” he noted. “The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good notions of history, progress, or as Thomas Sowell has written, the visions of the anointed.”

(Sowell’s 1995 book “The Vision of the Anointed” exposes the hubris of America’s intellectual and political elite and the mentality behind their destructive policies on education, crime, and family life.)

“None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the declaration,” Thomas added, wryly.

Why the Speech Matters

Thomas’s speech comes as President Donald Trump has attempted to root out much of the Progressivist “woke” ideology out of the federal government and other parts of American society.

Progressivism’s preference for technocratic government today travels alongside other ideas, such as critical race theory (the notion that America is systemically racist and requires a fundamental overhaul), transgender ideology (the idea that a man can become a woman and vice versa), and climate alarmism (the idea that the world is ending due to human use of fossil fuels).

These issues converge into a worldview I describe as “woke,” and that worldview forms the basis of the Left’s infrastructure – which heavily influenced federal policy under President Joe Biden.

Trump has put woke ideology on the back foot, but the Left is not rejecting these ideas. America is strangely fortunate at the 250^th anniversary to have a president who takes pride in its founding, rather than one who rejects the founding as racist, backward, or “transphobic” – but that does not mean the threat is over.

Americans must heed Clarence Thomas’ warning. The battle between the Declaration of Independence and Progressivism isn’t a matter of disagreeing on means to achieving the same ends – such as asking whether raising or lowering taxes will better handle the deficit.

Unfortunately, the battle often boils down to whether America remains faithful to its founding ideals or rejects them in favor of the Left’s latest justification to grasp unlimited power.

Thomas rightly explained that woke Progressivism is actually extremely backward – and America must reject it, not just on the 250^th anniversary of the declaration, but yesterday, today, and forever.

  

Who Is Clarence Thomas?

My VIP for this week is Justice Clarence Thomas, the man whom the Left loves to hate. Thomas is just one of several justices on the Supreme Court who are being ambushed by the Left. The Left gets upset when the American people does not obey them, and they get even more upset at the Supreme Court. Thomas Jipping at The Heritage Foundation shared how the Left does its dirty work. 

Caring more about power than liberty, the Left believes that its political ends justify their means. Just consider how leftists try to manipulate the Supreme Court, including smearing as “unethical” justices the Left considers too independent, hoping Americans will automatically question anything they do.

The latest attack on Justice Clarence Thomas shows they are still at it, but the spaghetti is not sticking to the wall because it is fiction.

The Left first suggested that the Supreme Court follows no ethical standards or guidelines. The same federal laws governing recusal and financial disclosure, however, have long applied to justices as well as lower court judges.

Then the Left said that the Supreme Court does not have an “enforceable” code of conduct. Well, the code for lower court judges only provides “guidance” and the Supreme Court has followed that code for decades. Last fall, the high court essentially copied and pasted that code and put its own name on it. The Left didn’t seem to notice. Then the Left started dropping innuendos and rumors about things like the flag flown at a justice’s cottage or a vacation taken with some friends.

Now comes one of those leftist groups, calling itself Fix the Court, with another round. The justices recently filed their financial disclosure reports for 2023. These cover activities such as serving on boards, investments, gifts, and liabilities. Fix the Court asserts that Thomas failed to disclose most of the gifts he has received that, they claim, total about $2.4 million over the last 20 years.

As Paul Harvey would have said, here’s the rest of the story. First, the group claims to have “identified” gifts justices supposedly received from newspaper stories and its “own research,” whatever that means. Second, Fix the Court used its own definition of “gift,” failed to, er, disclose that this is not the definition of “gift” that judges and justices are required to use when filing their annual financial reports.

Judges instead follow the Guide to Judiciary Policy, issued by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The guide in place when Thomas joined the Supreme Court told judges to “exclude gifts received as the personal hospitality of any individual.” The 2012 revision stated that “a ‘gift’ … does not include … social hospitality based on personal relationships.” And the current rule, revised in March 2023, provides that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality of any individual” need not be reported.

Third, Fix the Court’s description of how it came up with the gift totals is filled with words like “estimated” and “likely” as well as “we believe” and “in all likelihood” that, topped off with catch-alls such as “most likely an undercount” and the “additional ‘likely’ gifts” category. As they say, liars figure and figures lie. Not only are Fix the Court’s numbers literally their own invention, but this liberal smear of “and we hear this is just the tip of the iceberg” ambiguity makes their claims akin to double-hearsay.

Fourth, the group assigned whatever dollar figure they wanted to these “gifts” that Thomas was not required to disclose. How they could possibly know, for example, the value of private meals the Thomases enjoyed with friends while on vacation is impossible to fathom.

Fix the Court says that Thomas is unethical because he did not disclose what the group defines as gifts, with the value the group claims, regardless of the rules that federal judges actually have to follow. Those are just some of the misdirections and sleights-of-hand Fix the Court deployed to come up with numbers that they can then use to suggest that justices like Thomas, who interpret the Constitution as it’s written rather than making one up to fit the political agenda of this leftist group and its fellow travelers, are, well, just bad.

Jipping explained the Left’s “campaign to manipulate the Supreme Court” was all about doing whatever they could get away with. The Left’s reason is to create a Supreme Court that “will be a pliable and reliable political partner.” They have several ways of creating such a Court: “adding unnecessary seats to the Court, limiting justices’ terms, trying to force individual justices out of participating in certain cases, and smearing justices with fictional tales that they know most Americans will be unable to verify.”

Jipping then reminded his readers that King George used such “usurpations” as “undermining the independence of the judiciary” – which led to the War of Independence in 1776. This is “what distinguishes our judiciary from most others around the world.” It is this “fundamental principle” that we must defend and keep from being pushed aside.

Who Is Clarence Thomas?

My VIP for this week is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only conservative person of color on the bench. Justice Thomas is often in the crosshairs of the Far Left because they do not like conservatives of color. Kelsey Dallas at The Deseret News reported that Some Democratic lawmakers are accusing Justice Thomas of failing to disclose free trips provided by a wealthy friend. 

Dallas used a report from John Kruzel, who covers the Supreme Court for Reuters, for the following statement by Justice Thomas last Friday.

Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with disclosure guidelines.

Disclosure guidance has been recently updated. Although Justice Thomas has not made any disclosures under the new guidelines, he stated, “It is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.”

The situation arose because ProPublica created a report that traced the justice’s relationship with Harlan Crow, a “real estate magnate and Republican megadonor.” According to the recent report, Justice Thomas was invited to travel with Crow multiple times. They traveled on Crow’s private jet as well as his superyacht. They visited Crow’s ranch in East Texas and his resort in the Adirondacks.

Under the new guidelines, Justice Thomas would be required to report the trips on private jets and other similar gifts. The Washington Post noted that the revised rules took effect on March 14, 2023, with the following guidelines.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or other private retreats owned by a company, rather than an individual. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

The ProPublica report included a statement from the friend of Justice Thomas. Crow stated that neither he nor his wife discussed a pending case with Justice Thomas. “We have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue.”

Democrats are pushing for Justice Thomas to resign. I have even heard the word “impeached” being thrown around. However, there is no reason for the Justice to either resign or be impeached because he was reporting according to the previous rules and will report according to the new rules in the future.

Justice Clarence Thomas

                Justice Clarence Thomas serves on the U.S. Supreme Court, only the second black man to do so. Yet the new National Museum of African American History and Culture did not see fit to showcase his life and career. The museum does, however, give a prominent spot to Anita Hill, the woman who accused Thomas of sexual harassment.

                I believe it is only natural to ask for the reason(s) for the only mention of Justice Thomas being in connection with Hill. Could there be a political reason behind the neglect due to the fact that the Justice is conservative?

                The Daily Signal reports that seventeen members of Congress recently sent a letter to the secretary of the Smithsonian inquiring about Justice Thomas’ absence from the museum. The congressional letter reads: “The background and accomplishments of Justice Thomas are worthy of inclusion in the museum on their own merits…. Justice Thomas’ contributions to the judicial system through his appointment to the highest court in the country cannot be discounted. It is a disservice to his legacy and to the history to mention his name in a single caption, but provide no other exhibit showcasing his story.

                “With this in mind, we insist that you provide an explanation about the conspicuous absence of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from the new museum, and of any future plans to feature him in a permanent exhibit.”

                An online petition addressed to Dr. Lonnie Bunch III, the founding director of the museum, has more than 7,000 supporters. The petition reads in part that Justice Thomas “has established himself as one of the brightest legal minds of his generation, yet the newly opened National Museum of African American History and Culture fails to include any mention of his numerous accolades. This obvious oversight is even more glaring since this month commemorates Justice Thomas’ 25^th anniversary on the Court.

                “It is obvious politics is what kept Justice Thomas out of the museum. For years, he has been shunned by the liberal black community since he has spoken out against affirmative action. He has written that affirmative action amounts to racial discrimination, and detailed how it worked against him when he was trying to find work as a lawyer.

                “Curators at the museum singled out Thomas due to his unique views on race and his conservative thought that the federal government is the greatest threat to our individual liberties. The museum highlights people of less noble endeavors, and it is unfathomable to think the curators were not open-minded enough to include all historically significant African Americans, no matter their political beliefs….”

                Of course, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian Institution claims that the museum could not “tell every story” of the experiences of African Americans. Linda St. Thomas said, “There are many compelling personal stories about African Americans who have become successful in various fields, and, obviously, Associate Justice Thomas is one of them…. However, we cannot tell every story in our inaugural exhibitions.”

                Justice Thomas is not the only successful African American not being showcased in the museum. SNSNews.com toured the new exhibit and then asked why Justice Thomas and eight other prominent men and women were not included. The answer was that they could not include every successful black American.

                Eight other successful African Americans that were not included are: (1) Cora Brown (first African American woman elected to a state Senate in Michigan), (2) Alveda King (served in Georgia state legislature and pro-life advocate), (3) Senator Tim Scott (first African-American senator from South Carolina, first black Republican Senator, and first elected from the south since 1881), (4) Michael Steele (first African American chairperson of the Republican National Committee), (5) Kenneth Blackwell (mayor of Cincinnati, OH, State Treasurer, and Secretary of State for Ohio), (6) Thomas Sowell (economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author), (7) Shelby Steele (author, columnist, documentary filmmaker), and (8) Walter E. Williams (economist at George Mason University).

                I do not recognize all of the people named above, but I know that Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Tim Scott, and Alveda King are conservatives who encourage African Americans to take responsibility for themselves and their families. Could this be the reason that they are excluded from the museum?

Justice Clarence Thomas

                Twenty-five years ago Clarence Thomas became a Justice on the Supreme Court. He is the second black member of the Court. Justice Thomas, 68-years old, does not speak often in public settings, but his infrequent comments are powerful. He was honored recently when asked to deliver the Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at The Heritage Foundation. He casually as he casually answered questions posed by John Malcolm before an audience of about 200 guests.

                Ken McIntyre shared some of the Justice’s comments in his article titled “17 Things on Clarence Thomas’ Mind During Rare Public Remarks.”In his remarks the Justice clearly defended and supported the Constitution by saying that the Supreme Court should base its decisions on the Constitution and write their decisions and explanations  in a language that regular people can understand.

                Ed Meese of The Heritage Foundation said that Justice Thomas is “one of the clearest writers we have ever had on the Supreme Court.”