Justice Thomas's Memoir
Ilya Somin
isomin at gmu.edu
Wed Dec 5 09:25:41 PST 2007
I'm not aware of their being any special constraints on the writing of memoirs by judges, even if there are constraints on their other activities that don't apply to public figures. I don't see why it's any more unusual for Thomas to write memoirs in which he tells his side of the story from controversies he has been involved in then for Clinton to do so. The facts in dispute between Hill and Thomas occurred long before he became a judge, and discussing them in no way reveals judicial confidences or is otherwise inconsistent with Thomas' duties as a judge.
Ilya Somin
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
ph: 703-993-8069
fax: 703-993-8202
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Schor <mschor at suffolk.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:02 pm
Subject: RE: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> I thought that whether federal judges should behave just
> like other
> politicians was a contentious normative and empirical question . .
> . Miguel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ilya Somin
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:23 AM
> To: Michael Zimmer
> Cc: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu;
> DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> Subject: Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
>
> Public figures all the time write memoirs that "pick scabs
> off old
> wounds." For example, President Clinton's memoirs describe in some
> detailhis view of the Lewinsky affair and his impeachment.
>
> Ilya Somin
> Assistant Professor of Law
> George Mason University School of Law
> 3301 Fairfax Dr.
> Arlington, VA 22201
> ph: 703-993-8069
> fax: 703-993-8202
> e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Zimmer <zimmermi at shu.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 9:20 am
> Subject: Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
>
> > Picking scabs off old wounds that will only reopen them
> and doing
> > that in
> > public is not strange?
> >
> > Michael J. Zimmer
> > Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall Law School
> > One Newark Center
> > Newark, NJ 07102
> > 973.642.8833
> > 973.642.8194 fax
> >
> >
> >
> > Ilya Somin <isomin at gmu.edu>
> > 12/04/2007 10:01 PM
> >
> > To
> > DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> > cc
> > zimmermi at shu.edu, conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu,
> > CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject
> > Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just to add to the points made by David Bernstein:
> >
> > I was not suggesting that there is no evidence on either
> side,
> > merely that
> > the evidence is murky enough that there is genuine doubt
> about who
> > is
> > telling the truth, and that in the absence of partisan
> bias, we
> > would not
> > see opinion aligning in such rigid lockstep.
> >
> > I agree with Michael Zimmer that Thomas had much to gain
> by
> > denying Hill's
> > accusations. But Hill also had much to gain by making
> them,
> > including
> > becoming a heroine to the left and - possibly - getting
> back at a
> > former
> > boss whom she disliked for ideological and other reasons.
> The
> > former
> > benefit could only occur if her accusations were made
> public, of
> > course.
> > But the latter might have happened even if the remained
> secret,
> > but still
> > influenced the Senate to vote against Thomas.
> >
> > That doesn't prove that she was lying, but by the same
> token
> > Thomas'
> > self-interested reasons for denying her accusations did
> don't
> > necessarily
> > prove that he was lying.
> >
> > As for Thomas "reopening" the issue today, I don't think
> there's
> > anything
> > strange about that. He had decided to write a memoir. In
> doing so,
> > he
> > could hardly avoid addressing the most famous public
> controversy
> > he had
> > ever been involved in and restating his side of the story.
> >
> > Ilya Somin
> > Assistant Professor of Law
> > George Mason University School of Law
> > 3301 Fairfax Dr.
> > Arlington, VA 22201
> > ph: 703-993-8069
> > fax: 703-993-8202
> > e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
> > Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> > SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> > Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 10:01 pm
> > Subject: Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> > >
> > > If she had nothing to gain, why is she now a well-known
> chaired > > professor
> > > and feminist icon at Brandeis, as opposed to an obscure
> professor > > at University
> > > of Oklahoma? She had nothing to gain, but did gain,
> big time,
> > > doesn't make
> > > much sense.
> > >
> > > Of course, her original allegations were confidential,
> and she
> > > didn't
> > > anticipate they'd become public (and I believe was told
> as much
> by
> > > her "friends"
> > > working on the Democratic side on the Judiciary
> Committee, who
> > > then leaked it
> > > anyway just before the scheduled vote on his
> nomination). In
> > > which case, she
> > > also thought initially she had nothing to lose. If one
> could > > imagine that
> > > Hill held a grudge against Thomas for any reason, or
> just didn't
> > > like him
> > > ideologically, her allegations in that context would
> make perfect
> > > "logical" sense.
> > >
> > > The "logic of the situation" therefore does not tell us
> who was
> > > being
> > > truthful. There is additional evidence on both sides,
> some of
> > > which seems highly
> > > persuasive (many women who worked for Thomas swearing
> that he
> > > never behaved
> > > the way Hill described; Hill complaining
> contemporaneously about
> > > her boss).
> > > But weighing such evidence is quite different than
> stating that
> > > the "logic of
> > > the situation" dictates the conclusion. I could just
> as easily
> > > (maybe more
> > > easily) say that logically, a controversial black
> conservative > > running the EEOC
> > > in the Reagan adminstration would "logically" go out of
> his way
> > > to avoid any
> > > conduct that if revealed would ruin his reputation and
> career. > >
> > > In a message dated 12/4/2007 8:26:46 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> > > zimmermi at shu.edu writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think the issue is so starkly partisan,
> especially as to
> > > Professor
> > > Anita Hill, as you suggest. For Justice Thomas to
> reopen that
> > > whole issue is
> > > just very strange. His raising the issue again is
> unlikely to
> > > convince
> > > anyone to change their mind about what happened. She
> had no
> > > personal agenda to
> > > advance in coming forward when she did and certainly
> has a right
> > > now to defend
> > > herself when he attempts to yet again cast aspersions
> on her.
> > > While radicals
> > > sharing Justice Thomas' viewpoint want, and need, to
> believehim
> > > very
> > > desparately, the rest of us have a variety of
> viewpoints. To say
> > > it is
> > > he-said-she-said as if there could never be a finding
> of truth or
> > > significance is just
> > > wrong. While people can come to different conclusions
> and those
> > > conclusions
> > > can be shaped by our different values and world views,
> to deny
> > > that there is
> > > significance because it is simply he-said-she-said
> suggests the
> > > whole thing
> > > is inconsequential. And it is not. Certainly not for
> Justice > > Thomas; otherwise
> > > he would never raise this up again only to reopen old
> wounds, > > particularly
> > > his own. That it will be to no good effect does show
> that it is
> > > not
> > > inconsequential.
> > >
> > > The logic of the situation still points in one
> direction, even
> > > after all
> > > these years: Then-Judge Thomas had all to gain by denying
> > > Professor Hill's
> > > claim and she had little to gain, but doing her civic
> duty, by
> > > coming forward.
> > > She was and continues to be subjected to attacks that
> she did not
> > > bring on
> > > herself. I know for a fact that she was interested in the
> > > developing law of
> > > sexual harassment years before the confirmation
> hearings. This
> > > was at a time when
> > > she was teaching far from any area that had to deal
> with it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael J. Zimmer
> > > Professor of Law
> > > Seton Hall Law School
> > > One Newark Center
> > > Newark, NJ 07102
> > > 973.642.8833
> > > 973.642.8194 fax
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David E. Bernstein
> > > Professor
> > > George Mason University School of Law
> > > http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **************************************Check out AOL's
> list of
> > > 2007's hottest
> > > products.
> > > (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-
> > > 2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
>
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list