Rep. Hank Johnson: Thomas "worse than Snowden"

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), referring to Clarence Thomas' vote to gut the Voting Rights Act, said this about that vote:   "Comparing it to Snowden, I'd say the offense is worse."

He elaborated.   Edward Snowden's revealing NSA secrets was wrong, but he did it with the belief that what the United States government was doing is wrong.   In contrast, Clarence Thomas knows full well the consequences for black people of killing the VRA;  and yet he did it anyway.

Much as I abhor the stance Clarence Thomas takes on almost everything -- including the fact that he refuses to recuse himself from cases in which he obviously has a personal or financial biased interest -- I also understand that Thomas firmly believes that affirmative action is detrimental to black people.   He has said that, because he got into Yale Law School through affirmative action, that very fact makes his Yale Law diploma "worth about 15 cents."

Frankly, I think Clarence Thomas himself is the cause of the low value of his Yale Law School degree.

Others have a different take on Thomas' position, focusing on the fact that he did take advantage of affirmative action -- and then he denounced it.   Or as some wag put it:

"Clarence Thomas thinks he should be the last black man to benefit from affirmative action."

So -- which is it?   Is he a man of principle?   Or an ungrateful scourge?

I'll be charitable (although he would probably scorn that too as condescending and paternalistic):   I think Thomas is a man of strongly held principles;  but those principles are largely determined by deeply held and complex emotional conflicts about his experiences as a black man.

So does that mean he should not have been confirmed for SCOTUS?    Or, as biased as he is, does he represent a legitimate voice in our time?

If we take Thomas and Scalia at their most conservative, original-intent stance -- that Supreme Court Justices decide things strictly according to the Constitution, and emotions do not inter into decisions -- then it would seem that they would think that someone who is so driven by his emotions would be unqualified for such an important position.   But then they don't think their emotions enter into their decisions, at all.
 
Ralph