When Justice Thomas Speaks, He Has Something to Say
I don't write much in this space about Supreme Court, since this blog is usually dedicated to topics of interest in personal injury litigation. Even though I have an appellate practice, I don't expect to find myself preparing an argument in the SCOTUS anytime soon. I imagine I will end my legal career in the 99.995% of all attorneys who never make it to the Supreme Court.
Even so, I usually pay at least cursory attention to the goings-on down on First Street, because I find it interesting as an appellate lawyer and because I try to be a well-informed citizen. So I am aware of Clarence Thomas' well-established reputation as the Court's silent man, and that people draw varying inferences from his silence. Some think that it is a sign of closed-mindedness, an unwillingness to be persuaded, or an ideological entrenchedness. Others see it as a sign of indifference. Still others see it as a mask for intellectual weakness (an inference I find ridiculous). Even though I think it is safe to say that Justice Thomas and I are at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, I find him to be one of the most interesting justices.
Here is a great article from The Huffington Post about one of the few times Justice Thomas has engaged with counsel at argument. In 2002, he jumped in on the side of the State of Virginia in a case testing the constitutionality of a state law making cross-burning a criminal offense. As the Court's only African-American and a man who grew up in segregated Savannah, Georgia, he made the point that cross-burning isn't expression protected by the 1st Amendment, but instead a hateful act of terror and intimidation.
The Court, of course, struck down the statute. The article quotes Justice Thomas' dissent, stating: "Just as one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point."
Although I am sure it wasn't his intent, this illustrates neatly for me why a diversity of experience and viewpoint is a very good thing for the Court. Clearly Justice Thomas saw this issue in a different, more personal way than another person would. Just one more reminder that it's nearly always a bad idea to pigeonhole a justice, or anyone else.
