impeach Justice Thomas?
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Tue Oct 2 10:18:36 PDT 2007
Eugene Robinson has a good take on this, I think. As Robinson says,
Thomas says both that the confirmation hearings were all about
abortion and that they were all about race -- a lynching of him
because he was black and thought differently that he supposedly is
supposed to, and a targeting of him because of his position on abortion.
Robinson says it better and has some other good points.
Sadly, Thomas is an angry person, and perhaps has always been so.
And he has some significant unresolved issues, as they say. And I
think on some issues he lacks "judicial temperament." But, that same
critique I could make about most of the justices, I think.
I find it very strange that law professors would be so willing to go
with an all-or-nothing assessment of the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas
versions of what happened. Surely we have all seen enough of life
and been in enough situations to know that two people can see the
same incident or event very differently. Even sometimes our students
misunderstand our words, body language, intentions in ways that
mystify us -- or am I the only to whom this has happened? How else
to reconcile two student evals -- one says "he is too confusing"
followed by the next student who says "he presented everything very
clearly." (for the record, I'm a bit concerned about both students
since I what I try to do is present the confused law clearly :) )
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"There is no cosmic law forbidding the triumph of extremism in America."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof