The Blog

This past Sunday evening, my family and Teresa and Sarah Sherry heard Justice Clarence Thomas speak in Chicago at an event hosted by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.  It was quite an interesting event. 

Justice Thomas seems like a really personable, humble man.   It wasn’t an in-depth legal discussion, and a lot of the questions were of a more personal nature (based on his new bestselling memoir).  Still, I was impressed with some very clear and concise answers that he gave, in the Q & A time, on subjects such as originalism and international law. 

Here are a few memorable quotes (based on my best recollection of them and some notes I took.) (Note: these are not word-perfect quotes.)

On what it means to be an “originalist”: “At its most basic, there are two ways to interpret the Constitution.  On the one hand, you can look at the document and try to understand the text as it is written, and as it was understood and intended to be understood by its framers.  On the other hand, you can make it up as you go along.” (Applause.)

On the problem with international law: “The question is, how to you decide what countries to reach out to [to find legal principles]? . . . There is a ‘cherry picking’ tendency to reach out to only the countries that agree with you. . . . It’s just another way of making the Constitution say what we want it to.”

On the proper attitude of a Supreme Court justice: “I took an oath to God, not an oath to be God.” 

On the role of clerks: “Your job is to help me fulfill my oath of office.” Justice Thomas went on to talk about the importance of his oath of office - what a great responsibility it is, and how he is so concerned to honor it. 

I thought the last two quotes were particularly notable.  They demonstrate an understanding of the seriousness of oaths which is rarely understood today.  As theologian and philosopher R.J. Rushdoony explained, “[E]very…oath of office in the United states, was in earlier years recognized precisely as coming under the third commandment and, in fact, invoking it.  By taking the oath, a man promised to abide by his word and his obligations even as God is faithful to His Word.  If he failed, by his oath of office, the public official invoked divine judgment and the curse of the law upon himself.” (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law 1:111 (1973).)

If I remember correctly, there were about 940 people at the event, and the moderator, Ed Fuelner, said it was the largest Heritage Foundation event ever held outside Washington, DC.  The presidents of both the Heritage Foundation (Fuelner) and the Federal Society (Gene Meyer) were present. 

Afterwards, we had the opportunity to get books signed and meet Justice Thomas briefly.

Economists Milton and Rose Friedman had the opportunity to present their message the way most people only dream of - on national television.  Of course, they took the opportunity.  But they also wrote a book, presenting the same ideas that they presented on the series of ten nationwide broadcasts.  Why?  Their answer is insightful:

“Television is dramatic.  It appeals to the emotions.  It captures your attention.  Yet, we remain of the opinion that the printed page is a more effective instrument for both education and persuasion.  The authors of a book can explore issues deeply - without being limited by the ticking clock.  The reader can stop and think, turn the pages back without being diverted by the emotional appeal of the scenes moving relentlessly across his television screen. 

“Anyone who is persuaded in one evening (or even ten one-hour evenings) is not really persuaded.  He can be converted by the next person of opposite views with whom he spends an evening.”

Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980), pp. xi-xii.