A group of us were discussing merits of the various Justices on the US Supreme Court, including Thomas and Alito. One of them wrote, re Supreme Court rebukes Texas judges, backs hearing before deportation for detained Venezuelans:
Thomas and Alito are the worst conservative judges.
“The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the majority said. “We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.
The comments of my libertarian lawyer friend, F, with mine interspersed:
[X] said: “Status and lifestyle too extravagant for his large salary.”
His status is assured. Not just because of this or that ruling. Anyone who’s been around him knows he’s an extraordinary man who commands great respect.
I don’t think he does live large. He spends his summers going around the country in an RV. I don’t find it a big deal that some rich people have invited him to vacations; it’s something you can do if you’re rich, and it’s obvious that Thomas’s company would be desirable.
I think he’s wrong about some things; but in a consistent, principled way so that he rarely if ever surprises. (I haven’t read this latest decision.)
I agree with most of F’s comments about Thomas. But see a few comments below:
My view of Thomas as a person is highly favorable, based on limited personal exposure (being in a room watching him interact with people multiple times), a visit and one-on-one conversation that [Y] had with him, the experiences of other people I know who know him or have spent time around him, and his autobiography. I think he is a down-to-earth, good-hearted person, who likes people. I don’t think he puts on airs or particularly seeks attention or to enhance his status; I think he really is the guy who likes to go be with normal people in his RV all summer. I think he didn’t say much in arguments all those years because he sees no need to hear his own voice and put on a public show. I don’t see any credible evidence that contradicts the impression that I have of Thomas as a person.
As far as his general ideological orientation, he says he’s been influenced by Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and Thomas Sowell–though he is also a Catholic–and I see no reason to doubt that. I think he is basically a libertarian-leaning conservative along the lines of Sowell. Nothing I have seen suggests he is faking that; I don’t know why he would. He is close friends with Clint Bolick, and who would vouch for him to the hilt. (Bolick has his own political and ideological shortcomings, but he is no doubt a libertarian and a good guy.)
As far as his jurisprudence goes, I think he has integrity–I think he has a consistent view of the Constitution and follows it and is not results-driven, which I find more respectable than what most judges, especially most leftist judges, do. It’s still statist, but I appreciate the integrity.
And the results generally go in a direction I like. It’s true that I pay more attention to some issues—e.g., First Amendment (particularly issues such as campaign finance, on which he’s the best), Second Amendment, Privileges or Immunities, limits on Congress’s power. [Z] is right that he is not so good on habeas corpus, and he is generally more conservative on crime.
But this does not mean he is wrong as a legal matter. I am sure there are respectable legal(-statist) arguments for his reasoning–again, remember, the Constitution is not libertarian. 1 If I were on the court, I would try as best I could to find reasonable basis to interpret ambiguous federal statutes or constitutional provisions in a libertarian direction, but in other cases, the outcome from interpreting the text honestly would be an unjust outcome because the positive law is not libertarian. In those cases, I would either (a) recuse, or resign, (b) dissent according to Kinsella’s Conscience, and defy the positive law, and probably get promptly impeached (see my post Higher Law); or (c) reluctantly interpret the law accurately but explain in my separate concurrence why it’s unjust.
I probably should care more about that. He stands out so far from the others (except Gorsuch, who is much better) on the other things, and I like him so much personally, that I am perhaps unduly forgiving.
Yeah I have not studied this much, but my sense is Gorsuch and Thomas are the best, each having some libertarian-ish strengths over the other.
Alito is way worse, not at all comparable. I opposed his nomination because he spent his entire life arguing on the government’s side, so there was no reason to expect him to be at all good. He has been as bad as expected on criminal issues, and he is unreliable on other issues. […]
Right. And [Z]’s judgment the Thomas is the worse seems insane to me. I mean the 3 lefties are clearly the worse. When are they better than the others? Like 7% of the time maybe?
As for who is worst—I don’t recall whether I’ve mentioned it here, but when I was at the court in [month] I was shocked by how dumb Justice Jackson seemed, having not really heard her before. I know I shouldn’t care because I’m not a statist, but it was embarrassing, cringe. Aggressive questioning with little apparent understanding. I heard two experienced Supreme Court lawyers talking, one right and one leftish, and they readily agreed with each other that whenever they try to answer a question and explain something to her, there’s no way to know whether they’re getting through—it’s like there’s nobody there, no apparent comprehension at all. (Her opinions, presumably written by clerks, are not always so bad.)
The other justices, whether they deserve it or not, somehow have an aura of intelligence about them. Somehow it does feel like they’re appropriate to the highest court, ideology aside. There are lower court judges who have that, too. Not Jackson. Her aura is DUMB.
- Federal Judges Aren’t Real Judges; Down with the Fourth of July; Rockwell on Hoppe on the Constitution as Expansion of Government Power; Spooner on Knaves, Dupes, and the Constitution; and the Highwayman vs. The State. [↩]
