Clarence Thomas Blasts Media, Defends Supreme Court After Texas Abortion Decision

‘They think you become like a politician’

This story is cross-posted at our consumer site, Grabien News. Watch it there – without audiomarks.

Thomas: “Oh, the misconception. You know, I think that they think that we make policy. I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal impressions, preference. So, if they think you’re anti-abortion or something personally, I think that that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re you for this or for that, they think become like a politician. And I think that’s a problem to the — I think you’re gonna jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions. And I think the media and the interest groups further that. And I’ll give you an example of — of the — so, I know there’s a football game this weekend and Nebraska is playing Oklahoma and —
(Cheering and Applause)
Oh, you all have one too, huh?
(Laughter)
So, at any rate, let’s say this weekend that, you know, like if a referee makes a call that favors Notre Dame and Notre Dame wins, people would say, ‘Well, that was a fine referee.’ That’s what you’re supposed to do as a fan. But the — but if the referee makes that very same call and it works against Notre Dame, ‘Oh my goodness, I mean this guy can’t even see. Come on! Anybody could have seen this!’ The exact same call. That’s because we’re fans. We’re not acting is judges. We want a particular outcome. And so, we look at the outcome and that totally colors what we think the level and the quality of the refereeing was. So, if it’s for us, that was excellent refereeing. If it was against us, horrible, absolutely horrible, the guy should give it up. So the — but that’s not what you can do when looking at cases. But that’s precisely — read any article about sort of one of the big cases, and that’s precisely what you have. It’s like if the outcome is what I want it to be, excellent work, you know, another Marbury V. Madison. If it is against what you’re for, ‘Look, Dred Scott all over again, this is horrible.’ I mean that’s just the way it works. But I think that’s wrong. I think if you go back and you look at some of the ‘New York Times’ articles in the 30s and 40s on Supreme Court cases, the few that I’ve read are excellent because they summarize the case, they talk about the arguments, they summarize the holding, and then they — there may be a short paragraph on the implications. Now put that side-by-side with what you would get today. So, I think that that’s problematic and that sort of encourages these preconceptions about the court. That’s all just personal preferences.”

Video files
Full
Compact
Audio files
Full
Compact