Exclusive: Justice Thomas Opens Up On Life, Faith And His Interracial Marriage - see video at the link

Excerpt.

Although he knows the difficulty of taking the public beatings for his views, he often remembers his grandfather’s advice in the 1980s of “Boy, you have to stand up for what you believe in.” He acknowledges a certain peace that comes from knowing you did the right thing, and he talks about the importance of not allowing the critics to make you into someone you are not by overreacting negatively to them. He quotes the black author Richard Wright who said, “the worst I’ve ever been treated is when I told the truth.”

In an epic speech some 20 years ago to black judges in Memphis, Thomas boldly stated that he came not to defend his views, “but rather to assert my right to think to myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I’m black.” He wrote that speech, he says today, to draw attention to, “the right, among blacks, to think for themselves, the right to be that invisible man, to be the one who lays claim to his own thoughts.”

Racism is alive and well in the Democrat Party

Clarence Thomas: Obama 'Approved By The Elites' Because He Says What They 'Expect From A Black Person'

Q: Did you ever expect to see an African American president during your lifetime?

THOMAS: Oh yeah, I guess I’ve always thought there would be black coaches, heads of universities -- maybe again as I said I’m naïve but the thing I always knew is that it would have to be a black president who was approved by the elites and the media because anybody that they didn’t agree with, they would take apart. And that will happen with virtually -- you pick your person, any black person who says something that is not the prescribed things that they expect from a black person will be picked apart. You can pick anybody, don’t pick me, pick anyone who has decided not to go along with it; there’s a price to pay. So, I always assumed it would be somebody the media had to agree with.

Clarence Thomas at Harvard

When asked whether he read The New York Times every day, Thomas replied, "Oh, God, no!"

... which proves his great wisdom.

The Golden Girls From Brazil

Eva, Leni and Inga get a new roomate, a Lebanese named Helen. "Girls, I have a feeling diss iss de beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Helen Thomas: Celebrated For Her Sex, Not For Her Accomplishments

Quick, name a story that Helen Thomas broke.

Another "Macaca" moment? Not for Helen Thomas.

Another "Oh, that biased media" moment: 

Another "Macaca" moment, but infinitely worse, and actually bigoted? Not a chance, if the Post can help it.

Remember "Macaca?"  The racial slur that no had ever heard of, that no one ever knew?  The one that the Washington Post used to brand George Allen a racist and sink his election?  The remark that appeared on the Washington Post over 131 times.

Following the Macaca video, the Post ran no fewer than 131 articles on Allen’s slur. Thirteen of the articles slammed Allen on the front page, and 34 were in the national section or on the main editorial page.

If you read the Washington Post today there would be scant mention of a remark that, compared to Macaca, is a nuclear bomb compared to a 4th of July sparkler. 

From Pajamas Media: 

It is day four of the Helen Thomas saga. The 89-year-old White House doyen, adored by Washington’s liberal mainstream media, told a Jewish rabbi in a video that Jews must “get the hell out of Palestine” and must “go home” to Germany and Poland.

The issue has been raging since Thomas’ ugly comments were released on Friday by RabbiLive.com. Ironically, Thomas made her remarks at a White House Jewish Heritage Month observance.

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, there is near silence. As of the this writing, searching “Helen Thomas site:washingtonpost.com” on Google brings up two articles on Thomas being dropped as a commencement speaker at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, a Howard Kurtz piece mentioning her remarks, and a post debating if Hearst will drop Thomas as a journalist.

Otherwise, the Post, which prides itself since the days of Watergate as being the “political” paper of record, is dark.

So what's the problem with the Post being in the Hamas corner?

The media watchdog organization CAMERA has long critiqued the Post for feeding anti-Israel bias. They reported 25 major instances in 2009.

In the wake of the global anti-Semitic blasts of the past week, the Post’s continuing near-silence about the anti-Semitic views of the White House’s leading liberal columnist only aids and abets hatred and bigotry.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Meanwhile the Virginian Pilot focuses on the REAL outrage: a Virginia Beach council member using official stationery to write a letter to New Yorkers objection to the Cordoba mosque.  It has been a multi-day story leading to an outraged editorial and a column by Kerry Dougherty.  The Thomas remarks come at the end of a hagiographic smooch in an AP reprint.

I, for one, welcome our Muslim overlords.

Jonah Goldberg on Helen Thomas

Can we do away with all of the shock and dismay at Thomas' statement? Spare me Lanny Davis's wounded outrage. Everyone knows she is a nasty piece of work and has been a nasty piece of work for decades.

And when I say a nasty piece of work, I don't simply mean her opinions on Israel. She's been full-spectrum awful. I've known a few people who knew her 40 years ago, and she was slimy then too. ....

Also, let's just get the liberal bias thing out of the way. If there was a right-winger who'd spouted so much bile, hate, and ideological agenda-driven nonsense in the White House briefing room for half a century it would be . . . oh wait, no such person would have ever been allowed to become a Washington "institution" in the first place. According to the media graybeards, it's always been a sign of seriousness and unwavering truth-seeking for reporters to attack from the left (c.f. Dan Rather, Daniel Schorr, et al.).

See? She's not biased she asks Obama and Clinton tough questions too! Yes, from the hard, loony left.

All of these condemnations, equivocations, repudiations, and protestations are all fundamentally silly because they are part of a D.C. Kabuki that treats the last straw as if it was wholly different than the million other straws everyone was happy to carry.

Suddenly, all of these people and groups are stunned to discover that Helen Thomas is . . . Helen Thomas. Feh.

Justice Thomas Defends Ruling on Finance

From the NY Times:

In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.

And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan....

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Clarence Thomas' Triumph

Emmett Tyrrell has some good things to say about Thomas:

All that the liberals reviewing this book have been able to talk about is its anger. Frankly, I saw very little anger. One of the amazing things about Thomas is his disposition. He is positive, resolute, profoundly decent and cheerful. That the liberals miss this comes as no surprise. They are increasingly narrow. Thomas admits his failures and forgives his enemies. This is because Thomas is a profoundly religious man, who throughout his life has turned to prayer. "My Grandfather's Son" is a book about many things, among them spirituality, conservative ideas, modern politics and race. In fact, Thomas' account of race in modern America is the most reliable I have ever read. Thomas has suffered prejudice from Southern bigots, from other blacks and, to this day, from liberals of both races. He writes about it with no ax to grind but with a positive message to impart: One can suffer enormous injustice and not let the (expletive deleted) get you down. This is not a book about anger; it is a book about the satisfied triumph of a good man.

The triump foa good man. It's good to see that good can triumph over evil.

Another Dimension Of The Thomas Smear

When you read this your blood pressure will rise and you will be reminded how low those reptiles that tried to destroy Judge Thomas are.

The primary tool that the Liberals used to try to discredit Thomas was to ride the old racist lie of the oversexed black man. They used that to indict Thomas, and when another black man came in as a character witness, they tried the same thing on him. Excerpts:

Let me set the stage for readers. Doggett, a successful black attorney who knew both Hill and Thomas, had come to testify on Thomas' behalf -- and had done so with little issue. However, Senator Howard Metzenbaum's turn came up to start asking questions, and he immediately accused Doggett of being a sexual harrasser himself

I'll let you read the link to the smear orchestrated by that old reprobate Howard Metzenbaum...

But here is Doggett's reply:

Senator, your comments about this document are one of the reasons that our process of government is falling apart. First of all, Senator, I have a copy of the statement that this person met—it is called a transcript of proceedings. But, Senator, if you read this, it is as telephone conversation that she has with some staff members pro and against Mr. Thomas, and she is not under oath. I did not do any of the things that she alleged. In fact, the first time any of these issues were raised was the day before I was supposed to come here, 8 1/2 years later. I knew when I put my information into the ring, that I was saying I am open season. For anybody to believe that, on the first day of work, for a woman working in the xerox room, who is 19 years old, a 33-year-old black man would walk up to a 19-year-old white girl and kiss her on the mouth as the first thing that they did, whoever believes that really needs psychiatric care. But let me talk about the facts, since you brought up this statement, which was not made under oath, which was not made consistent with any of the rules that you Senators are supposed to be responsible for, since this is the Judiciary Committee, let me talk about that, since you asked the question and went on and on and on. During that time that she—I have read this statement. If she had made it under oath, Senator, I would go to court, but
Senator METZENBAUM. This isn't her statement. I am reading from your statement, Mr. Doggett.

Mr. DOGGETT. The statement that you read from was a discussion with me, and consistently your staff people said, "I don't have the transcript, I don't remember the exact facts." Well, I have the transcript and the exact facts show this woman to be a profound liar who does not even remember the facts accurately.
...
Mr. DOGGETT. I will tell you, Senators, before I talk about the specifics, I debated, myself and with my wife, whether or not to start the process that resulted in me being here, because this is vicious, and I knew, since anything I said was going to raise the question about the credibility of Professor Anita Hill, as a lawyer, that meant my character was open season. I have never been involved as a candidate, although I have always said you can't complain about the process, if you're not willing to put your ass on the line—pardon me, I am sorry. I am sorry about that.
Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Chairman --

Mr. DOGGETT. But I have said if you don't like the way the political process is, then you have to get into it and you have to get into the fray. So, I said, okay, if I submit this information to this committee, then I am open season and people are going to shoot at me, and I do not care. I have information I think the committee needs to hear. If they feel it is relevant enough for me to be here, I will be here and I will take whatever occurs. But I will tell you, sir, I have had lawyers and professional people in Texas and around the country say that I was insane to subject myself to the opportunity to have something like this crawl out from under a rock. They have said I should have just stood on the sidelines and let it go by. I am an attorney, sir

Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Doggett --

Mr. DOGGETT [continuing]. I am a businessman and I cannot allow this process of innuendo, unsworn statements and attacks on characters to continue, without saying it is unacceptable.

The Liberals who hate Clarence Thomas and who tried to destroy him for their own reasons are now writing reviews of his book stating that he is "bitter and full of rage." His friends say that this is not true, that he is full of life and good cheer. But the publication of his book have brought back to my memory the ordeal and the lies. To the Left, the destruction of a man's life is fine as long as it furthers the cause. As the Mafia hit man said to his victim: "It's not personal." Well it damn well is personal. And if Clarence Thomas is not bitter, he's a better man than me.

Hat tip, Captain's Quarters

On Judge Thomas: He Wasn't Supposed to Take That Personally

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline wrote:

Justice Clarence Thomas has written an autobiography called My Grandfather's Son. The book ends with his swearing in as a Supreme Court Justice. It covers in detail Thomas's confirmation hearings, in which he was accused at the last minute of sexually harassing Antia Hill years earlier. Hill had not complained about Thomas's behavior at the time or for years thereafter (there was no mention of any of this when Thomas was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals), and her allegations were unsubstantiated. Yet 48 Senators voted against his confirmation.

The Washington Post, however, seems taken aback that Thomas has written uncharitably of those who tried to assassinate his character. Here's how Robert Barnes, Michael Fletcher, and Kevin Merida begain their story about Thomas's book:

Justice Clarence Thomas settles scores in an angry and vivid forthcoming memoir, scathingly condemning the media, the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court, and the "mob" of liberal elites and activist groups that he says desecrated his life.

Checking up on The New Republic; Beauchamp

Michelle interviews The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb about the Scott Thomas Beauchamp scandal. We also stop by The New Republic’s office in Washington to see if editor Franklin Foer will talk with us.

Check the video with Michelle Malkin.

There is also some exposure of slopping reporting not only by The New Republic as well as Newsweek who tried to make a victim of Scott Beauchamp.

The MSM wants to ignore this of go away. Even the MSM is forced to face the fact that these were untruths.

George Will on Diversity Education and the Supreme Court

Will points out (as does Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion see pages 49 -84) how far the courts have twisted and tortured the purposes of Brown vs. Board of Education.

How did we get from this: "Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere" (the NAACP's brief, written by Thurgood Marshall, in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education desegregation case), to this: Local public education establishments routinely taking cognizance of race in assigning children to schools?

[...]

Although progressive people would never stoop to racial stereotyping, they evidently believe that any black or other minority child, however young, or from whatever social background, makes a predictable and distinctive -- you might say stereotypical -- contribution to "diversity."

Breyer said that last week's decision abandons "the promise of Brown." Actually, that promise -- a colorblind society -- has been traduced by the "diversity" exception to the Equal Protection Clause. That exception allows white majorities to feel noble while treating blacks and certain other minorities as seasoning -- a sort of human oregano -- to be sprinkled across a student body to make the majority's educational experience more flavorful.

Justice Thomas:

To equate the achievement of a certain statistical mix in several schools with the elimination of the system of systematic de jure segregation trivializes the latter accomplishment. Nothing but an interest inclassroom aesthetics and a hypersensitivity to elite sensibilities justifies the school districts’ racial balancing programs. [...]

(“[R]acial discriminations are in most circumstances irrelevant and therefore prohibited”). And appropriately so.“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored racesor are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdensor benefits, it demeans us all.” [...]

Unlike de jure segregation,there is no ultimate remedy for racial imbalance. Individual schools will fall in and out of balance in the natural course, and the appropriate balance itself will shift with aschool district’s changing demographics. Thus, racial balancing will have to take place on an indefinite basis—acontinuous process with no identifiable culpable party and no discernable end point. In part for those reasons, theCourt has never permitted outright racial balancing solelyfor the purpose of achieving a particular racial balance. [...]

“[R]acial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination.”... As these programs demonstrate, every time the government uses racial criteria to “bring the races together,” ... someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race. The petitioner in the Louisville case received a letter from the school board informing her that her kindergartener would not be allowed to attend the school of petitioner’s choosing because of the child’s race. ... Doubtless, hundreds of letters like this went out from both school boards every year these race-based assignment plans were in operation. This type of exclusion, solely on the basis of race, is precisely the sort of government action that pits the races against one another, exacerbates racial tension, and “provoke[s] resentment among those who believe that they have beenwronged by the government’s use of race.” [...]

...the dissent argues that the social science evidence is “strong enough to permit a democratically elected school board reasonably to determine that this interest is a compelling one.” ... This assertion is inexplicable. It is not up to the schoolboards—the very government entities whose race-based practices we must strictly scrutinize—to determine what interests qualify as compelling under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [...]

The dissent accuses me of “feel[ing] confident that, to end invidiousdiscrimination, one must end all governmental use of race-conscious criteria” and chastises me for not deferring to democratically elected majorities. .... Regardless of what JUSTICE BREYER’s goals might be, this Court does not sit to “create a society that includes all Americans” or to solve the problems of “troubled inner city schooling.” ... We are not social engineers. The United States Constitution dictates that local governments cannot make decisions on the basis of race. Consequently, regardless of the perceived negative effects of racial imbalance, I will not defer to legislative majorities where the Constitution forbids it. It should escape no one that behind JUSTICE BREYER’s veil of judicial modesty hides an inflated role for the Federal Judiciary. The dissent’s approach confers on judges the power to say what sorts of discrimination are benign and which are invidious. Having made that determination (based on no objective measure that I can detect), a judge following the dissent’s approach will set the level of scrutiny to achieve the desired result. Only then must the judge defer to a democratic majority. In my view, to defer to one’s preferred result is not to defer at all. [...]

Most of the dissent’s criticisms of today’s result can be traced to its rejection of the color-blind Constitution. ... The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a color-blind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today’s plurality.... But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan’s view in Plessy: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” .... And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown. ...(“That the Constitution is color blind is our dedicated belief”); Brief for Appellants in Brown v. Board of Education, O. T. 1952, No. 1, p. 5 (“The Fourteenth Amendment precludes a state from imposing distinctions or classifications based upon race and color alone”);... see also In Memoriam: Honorable Thurgood Marshall, Proceedings of the Bar and Officers of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, X (1993) (remarks of Judge Motley) (“Marshall had a ‘Bible’ to which he turned during his most depressed moments. The ‘Bible’ would be known in the legal community as the first Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy
v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 552 (1896). I do not know of any opinion which buoyed Marshall more in his pre-Brown days . . .”). [...]

The dissent appears to pin its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause to current societal practice and expectations, deference to local officials, likely practical consequences, and reliance on previous statements from this and other courts. Such a view was ascendant in this Court’s jurisprudence for several decades. It first appeared in Plessy, where the Court asked whether a state law providing for segregated railway cars was “a reasonable regulation.” ... The Court deferred to local authorities in making its determination, noting that in inquiring into reasonableness “there must necessarilybe a large discretion on the part of the legislature.” ... The Court likewise paid heed to societal practices, local expectations, and practical consequences by looking to “the established usages, customs and traditions of the people,and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order.” ... Guided by these principles, the Court concluded: “[W]ecannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the Fourteenth Amendment than the acts of Congress requiring separate schools for colored children in the District of Columbia.” [...]

The segregationists in Brown embraced the arguments the Court endorsed in Plessy. Though Brown decisively rejected those arguments, today’s dissent replicates them to a distressing extent.