Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
702526
label
Clarence Thomas Nomination [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702526
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Clarence Thomas Nomination [2]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29172-007
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702526
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c97430cd32f3051d
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[2]; 1998-0207-F
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29172
Folder ID Number:
29172-007
Folder Title:
Clarence Thomas Nomination [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
4
3
Coalitions for America
Paul M. Weyrich
National Chairman
717 Second Street, N.E.
Eric Licht
Capitol Hill
President
Washington, D.C. 20002
Library Court
(202) 546-3003
Social Issues
Stanton
Defense & Foreign Policy
JUDICIAL NOMINATION FACT SHEET
Kingston
Clarence Thomas' Background
Budget & Economic Policy
721 Group
Judicial & Legal Policy
Siena Group
Catholic Coalition
Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948 with the help of a
The Omega Alliance
midwife in a small house in Pinpoint, Georgia. His father left when
Young Activist Coalition
Clarence was a toddler and he lived with his mother, her aunt and uncle,
Resistance Support Alliance
Freedom Fighter Policy
together with his older sister and younger brother for six and half years.
Jewish/Conservative Alliance
They had no indoor plumbing, sharing an outhouse with several neighbors.
They carried water in buckets from a common pump. Everyone worked.
Clarence started the first grade at the segregated Haven Home School in 1954, the
same year the Supreme Court ruled segregation unconstitutional in Brown V. Board of
Education. Midway through the school year, Clarence and his brother moved with their
mother to Savannah. They lived in one room of a tenement and used a common kitchen
and common toilet. Their mother worked long hours as a maid for $20 every two weeks.
Clarence completed the first grade at the Florance Street School. His attendance was poor
and he often wandered the streets of Savannah.
In the summer of 1955, Clarence and his brother went to live with their maternal
grandparents, Myers and Christine Anderson. She had a sixth grade education and he had
attended the third grade. A proud, disciplined man, Myers Anderson believed that
everyone who could work should work. He had never known his father and his mother
died when he was nine. He lived with his grandmother, who he said was freed from slavery
as a young girl. Myers Anderson's own hard life, without mother, father, or education in
an era of segregation and Jim Crow laws determined how he would raise his grandsons.
They had to work and to survive, no matter what happened in the world around them.
The world of Clarence's youth was the world of segregated Georgia. Schools, lunch
counters, libraries, water fountains, movies, and public restrooms were segregated. Once
when they were traveling, Clarence's grandfather stopped for gas. When the attendant said
there was no "colored" restroom, Myers Anderson said if his wife could not use their
restroom, he could not use their gas.
Clarence and his brother had to be ready to work at 3:00 every day, 30 minutes after
school let out. They helped their grandfather build a house on some farm land and then
began farming the land. Their grandfather taught them that the sun should never catch
anyone still in bed. If they ever slept until 7 or 8 a.m., he would say that they must have
thought they were rich since no poor man could afford to sleep that late.
Clarence's grandparents were honest, hardworking, and deeply religious. They
believed hard work and decency were indispensable. The boys could never refuse to do an
errand for a neighbor, could never debate an adult, and had to address adults with respect.
Their grandfather warned that if they did not work they did not eat and constantly
reminded them of his intention to "raise them right" and teach them "to do for yourselves."
Clarence and his brother were enrolled in St. Benedict's Grammar School, a
segregated Catholic school, and taught by Franciscan nuns. They missed one-half day of
school during the time they lived with their grandparents. Myers Anderson felt Catholic
schools were better because they utilized corporal punishment, discipline, and uniforms.
At St. Benedict's Catholic Church, as well as at home and in schools, Clarence learned the
value of hard work, the inherent equality of all people, and the need to excel. He attended
St. Pius X High School, also segregated, for two years and in 1964 transferred to St. John
Vianney Minor Seminary. He repeated the 10th grade to take three years of Latin and
graduated as the only black student in his class in 1987. His classmates placed the following
under his yearbook picture: "Blew that exam, only got a 98."
Clarence attended Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri for his college
freshman year. He transferred to Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts and
graduated with honors in 1971. At Holy Cross, he helped found the Black Students Union
and served as an officer for three years, worked in the Free Breakfast Program, and tutored
in the Worcester community. From 1971-74, Clarence attended Yale Law School in New
Haven, Connecticut, and worked for New Haven Legal Assistance during school and the
summers of 1971 and 1972. While interviewing for a job with law firms, he once again
confronted discrimination through insulting and condescending interviews that probed his
performance in college, high school, and even grammar school.
John C. Danforth, then Attorney General of Missouri, hired Clarence as his assistant
in 1974. During that summer, he stayed at the home of Margaret Bush-Wilson, later the
Chairman of the Board of the NAACP. Three days after being sworn in as a member of
the Missouri bar, Clarence argued his first case before the Supreme Court of Missouri. He
represented the state before all levels of the state court system in matters ranging from
criminal law to taxation.
After two years in private practice with the Monsanto Company, Clarence moved to
Washington and joined now-Senator John Danforth's staff as a legislative assistant. He was
responsible for issues including energy, environment, federal lands, and public works.
President Ronald Reagan nominated him in 1981 to be Assistant Secretary of Education
for Civil Rights and a year later to be Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. He was sworn in on May 17, 1982, and was renominated and reconfirmed to
that post in 1986. He was the eighth and longest serving chairman of that agency.
Clarence's first marriage ended in divorce and he spent most of his tenure as EEOC
Chairman as a single parent, having received custody of his son Jamal. He married the
former Virginia Bess Lamp in May 1987. Mrs. Thomas is a Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Labor. They reside in northern Virginia.
This account is excerpted from "The Good, the Bad, and the Judges," Family, Law & Democracy Report, October
1989, at 12-15. FLD Report was a publication of the Free Congress Research & Education Foundation.
Coalitions for America
Paul M. Weyrich
717 Second Street, N.E.
National Chairman
Capitol Hill
Eric Licht
President
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 546-3003
Library Court
Social Issues
JUDICIAL NOMINATION FACT SHEET
Stanton
Defense & Foreign Policy
Chairman Clarence Thomas' Record
Kingston
at the
Budget & Economic Policy
721 Group
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Judicial & Legal Policy
Siena Group
Catholic Coalition
The Omega Alliance
The Equal employment Opportunity Commission receives and
Young Activist Coalition
Resistance Support Alliance
evaluates charges of employment discrimination and enforces the equal
Freedom Fighter Policy
employment opportunity laws. Clarence Thomas began service as the
Jewish/Conservative Alliance
eighth Chairman of the EEOC on May 17, 1982. He inherited an agency
in deep trouble; he left it completely transformed. Today, there hangs in
the lobby of the agency's sparkling new building named after Chairman
Thomas a plaque in his honor. By it, the Commission and its employees
honor Clarence Thomas for "his dedicated leadership exemplified by his
personal integrity and unwavering commitment to freedom, justice and
equality of opportunity and the highest standards of government service."
A. Financial Management
The day Chairman Thomas took office, the General Accounting Office exposed
serious management problems that impeded EEOC's ability to carry out its mandate. The
agency's financial records were in shambles. It was virtually unable to account for its funds.
The GAO report stated that "EEOC faces a formidable task in correcting the operational
deficiencies that allowed the unreliable records to develop. The task must be accomplished,
however, because the current accounting system can have a devastating effect on the
agency's operations in future years."
Two years later, under Chairman Thomas, the GAO approved EEOC's accounting
system and by the end of his tenure, it had been completely automated; the agency now
obligates over 99% of its appropriation. All of its accounting records are now accurate,
timely, and reliable. Yet EEOC never received appropriations to rebuild any aspect of the
agency. Chairman Thomas did it through better and more efficient management.
B. Personnel
After auditing EEOC's management, the Office of Personnel Management issued a
report the same month Chairman Thomas took office. OPM audited 60 jobs in EEOC's
Office of Administration to determine whether the employee's perfomance matched the
grade of the job. OPM reduced or downgraded 53 of them.
In addition, the report said that "there has been no cataloging of books in the library
for the past three years because of staff shortages; and the mail operation has been so
poorly supervised and operated that the agency is considering contracting out the function."
An employee who once had improperly received $4000 in overtime pay by personally
falsifying her time and attendance records was later promoted and given a cash award for
producing the agency's telephone directory. The agency considered this a remarkable
achievement because it was the first time in two years that anyone could get the various
offices to provide their telephone numbers! Prior to Chairman Thomas' arrival in May
1982, there had never even been an accurate count of the agency's employees.
The agency's manual personnel system and its payroll system were totally separate
and data errors were so pervasive the employees learned to expect them. Under Chairman
Thomas, without additional resources, the personnel system became fully automated, linked
directly with the payroll system, and the error rate dropped to .01 percent. He
implemented programs to upgrade and train existing employees, recruit superior new ones,
and assure quality. EEOC's Director of Personnel Management Services completed an
assessment that concluded that "we have managed to regroup, redirect our efforts and
establish a very credible personnel organization--which is now routinely commended and
consulted by other small agencies and OPM itself for our excellent personnel practices."
C. Law Enforcement
The previous EEOC administration believed that discrimination charges should be
processed as quickly as possible. Under this "rapid charge" system, EEOC brought the
charging party and employer together prior to any investigation to reach a "negotiated
settlement" that produced a "no fault settlement agreement." Some 50% of EEOC's charges
were thus settled with no investigation of the merits and no finding of discrimination.
This was not enforcement at all because no attempt was made to determine the
merits of the discrimination charge. Frivolous and meritorious charges received the same
treatment. Employers who discriminated and those who did not were treated the same.
A letter from the Office of Management and Budget dated December 8, 1980, stated the
result that "the rapid charge process allows the settlement of the individual charges without
modifications to employment policies." This approach generated a high number of
settlements but few, if any, cases were actually investigated and decided on the merits.
Shoveling cases out the door, paying little attention to them, does nothing to enforce the
equal employment opportunity laws. In fact, the investigative staff rarely left the office and
had never been trained to investigate, only to crank out settlement statistics. A high
number of closed cases was in reality a measure of the discrimination charges that were
never investigated, the instances of discrimination never determined, and the number of
discrimination victims never adequately compensated.
Under Chairman Thomas, each charge was investigated and, if necessary, litigated.
He effected a fundamental change of enforcement philosophy, indeed, of agency culture.
He changed it from a machine generating "good numbers" to one that actually enforced the
law. The Commission unanimously adopted a series of policies to effect this change in
agency culture. The 1984 Enforcement Policy stated that all charges that failed conciliation
were to be forwarded to the full Commission along with the General Counsel's
recommendation about litigation. The number of cases considered for litigation
authorization doubled during Chairman Thomas' tenure and the number of cases authorized
for litigation more than doubled. The 1985 Remedies Policy stated that EEOC would seek
the maximum remedy available under the statutes it enforced. The 1987 No Cause Review
Policy gave charging parties receiving a determination that no cause existed for litigation
the right to an independent review of that decision.
The statistics speak for themselves.
Fiscal
Total
Merit
Resolutions After
Year
Resolutions
Resolutions¹
Full Investigations²
1980
57,327
17,300
15,533 (27%)
1981
71,690
26,507
23,596
1982
67,052
21,675
25,432 (38%)
1983
74,441
22,039
33,135
1984
55,034
13,588
27,803 (51%)
1985
63,567
10,935
37,092
1986
63,446
9,613
38,877 (61%)
1987
53,482
8,114
30,990
1988
70,749
10,641
37,086
D. Litigation
Under the "rapid charge" approach, of course, very few cases actually went to
litigation. Under Chairman Thomas, the General Counsel brought more lawsuits than at
any time in the agency's history. Again, the numbers speak for themselves.
Fiscal
Suits
Year
Filed
1980
358
1981
444
1982
241
1983
195
1984
310
1985
411
1986
526
1987
527
1988
555
1
Merit resolutions include settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and both successful and unsuccessful
conciliations.
2
This category includes only those cases closed after a determination on the merits - cause or no cause
cases. Many other fully investigated cases are not included because they were either settled or withdrawm before
an official determination was made.
The civil rights establishment criticized the initial decline in the litigation statistics
but never applauded the dramatic rise thereafter. Rather, the establishment then criticized
EEOC for supposedly retreating from class actions and systemic cases. However, no one
has ever produced evidence on the number of past EEOC class actions (the management
system was in such shambles it could not have kept statistics if they did exist) and no
program for bringing systemic cases existed when Chairman Thomas took office! In fact,
the previous "rapid charge" system did not permit developing a viable approach to class
actions. By contrast, under Chairman Thomas' leadership EEOC began publicly disclosing
an annotated list of all cases filed, together with the docket numbers.
Chairman Thomas took an opportunity to refute the charge "that the EEOC is timid
about filing class-action suits" in a letter to the editor of Management Review (April 1988,
p.8). He wrote: "Class actions have proven to be very effective and make up almost one-
half of the Commission's suits filed since 1982." He went on to describe two major class-
action victories, one against Goodyear and another against AT&T.
Each year, some voice from the liberal community writes an opinion article claiming
the EEOC is lax in enforcing the equal employment opportunity laws. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, who chaired the EEOC before Clarence Thomas, has participated in this annual
ritual. In December 1985, for example, she claimed that there had been a 50% drop in the
number of discrimination cases filed. Chairman Thomas set the record straight in a letter
to the editor (Toledo Journal, 3/26/86). During fiscal year 1985, the Commission filed 411
court actions, the second highest annual tally in the agency's history, and recovered a record
amount of monetary relief for victims of job discrimination. He wrote: "This Commission's
commitment to eradicating discrimination in the work place is resulting in more thorough
investigations, improved court cases, more vigorous litigation and far better remedies for
victims than ever before."
Again, in February 1987, Norton claimed "declining federal enforcement at the
[EEOC]." Again, Chairman Thomas had to set the record straight. Again, the facts speak
for themselves. He wrote (Washington Post, February 27, 1987) that in fiscal year 1986
"EEOC filed 526 court actions to enforce equal opportunity laws. That's the highest
number of legal actions filed in this agency's 21-year history. EEOC secured more than
$46.3 million in relief for victims of job discrimination through litigation in fiscal 1986."
The January 1988 installment was made by another writer who again claimed the
EEOC was not aggressively enforcing the law. Chairman Thomas again had to write
(Washington Afro-America, 3/12/1988) that if the writer had "bothered to check his facts,
he might have foregone such a blanket accusation." He wrote: "Court actions filed by
EEOC numbered 526 and 523 for fiscal years 1986 and 1987 respectively--the highest
annual number of legal actions filed in the agency's 23-year history."
Another critic did the job in 1989. Chairman Thomas responded again with the facts
(Miami Herald, March 22, 1989). "In fiscal year 1988 the agency filed a record 554 court
actions." From 1982 to 1988, "the agency garnered over $865.4 million in monetary
benefits." Finally, "At the end of fiscal 1988, the EEOC had reduced its inventory by 8,630
cases from fiscal 1987."
Chairman Thomas summarized the agency's record under his leadership in the
California Lawyer (May 1989): "This commission's record stands on its own merits. We have
investigated more charges, filed more lawsuits and obtained more tangible benefits for
victims of unlawful discrimination than any previous commission. We have buttressed our
strengths. We have acknowledged our weaknesses. and taken steps to correct them. Our
program is working."
E. Conclusion
Under Clarence Thomas, EEOC changed both qualitatively and quantitatively. An
agency that could not manage its own finances, could not perform basic functions, and could
only close cases quickly without investigation and with only nominal relief became a
streamlined and efficient agency focused on credible and effective law enforcement. This
was accomplished without additional funds. The Washington Post (5/17/87) said that while
other civil rights agencies languished, "things are markedly different at the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission." The liberal paper went on to praise "the quiet but
persistent leadership of Chairman Clarence Thomas."
Coalitions for America
Paul M. Weyrich
717 Second Street, N.E.
National Chairman
Capitol Hill
Eric Licht
President
Washington, D.C. 20002
Library Court
(202) 546-3003
Social Issues
Stanton
Defense & Foreign Policy
JUDICIAL NOMINATION FACT SHEET
Kingston
Budget & Economic Policy
Judge Clarence Thomas' Record
721 Group
at the
Judicial & Legal Policy
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Siena Group
Catholic Coalition
The Omega Alliance
Judge Thomas' nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals was endorsed
Young Activist Coalition
Resistance Support Alliance
by conservative leaders such as Paul Weyrich, National Chairman of
Freedom Fighter Policy
Coalitions for America, and liberal leaders such as William Coleman,
Jewish/Conservative Alliance
Board Chairman of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Recognizing Judge
Thomas' outstanding record at the EEOC, the International Association
of Official Human Rights Agencies, representing more than 160 agencies
involved in hands-on civil rights law enforcement, stated that "we believe
that Chairman Clarence Thomas would bring to the Federal judiciary a
sense of fairness, a passion for fundamental commitment to the rule of
law, and a temperament that could bring great credit to our system of
justice." Judge Thomas has exceeded IAOHRA's expectations.
As of July 18, 1991, Judge Thomas has participated on three-judge panels in 157
cases; 87 of these produced written opinions. This total does not include per curiam
decisions. He has participated in cases with each of his 11 circuit colleagues, both liberals
and conservatives. He has written 17 majority opinions, 2 concurrances, and 1 dissent.
Those opinions are thorough, well-written, and well-organized. Judge Thomas consciously
maintains an appropriately modest view of the appellate court's role. Gordon Crovitz (Wall
Street Journal, 7/3/91, p.A7) writes that "the best way to predict how Justice Clarence
Thomas would rule is to review how Judge Clarence Thomas has ruled His political
enemies won't find much grist in these rulings, which are textbook examples of judicial
restraint." Even the leftist Alliance for Justice, which fought unsuccessfully to defeat
Clarence Thomas' first judicial nomination, concluded that "[h]is decisions overall do not
indicate an overly idealogical [sic] tilt, although they generally are conservative, especially
his criminal law and procedure decisions." Summaries follow.
A. Criminal Law
United States V. Whoie
925 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
Panel: Thomas, Buckley, Williams
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Conviction
A convicted drug dealer claimed entrapment. Judge Thomas noted that "the
Supreme Court has stressed that the [entrapment] defense centers on...a person's
predisposition to commit a crime, not on the government's conduct." Even though the
district court in this case had not made it clear that the government has the burden of
proving predisposition, this did not rise to the level of "plain error." In this opinion, Judge
Thomas carefully noted the standard of review and avoided addressing unnecessary issues.
United States V. Rogers
918 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, Wald, R.B. Ginsburg
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Conviction
An individual convicted of possessing crack with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet
of a school claimed the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior crack
distribution and possession of a'beeper. Judge Thomas rejected this argument, concluding
that the conviction evidence had not been admitted to prove character. He found that drug
dealers often use beepers, and the relevance of that evidence outweighed any possible
prejudice. Judge Thomas used "traditional tools" to construe the Federal Rules of Evidence
and began, "as we do with any statute, with the language of the rules themselves." He
refused to stretch them beyond their intended scope. In ruling that sufficient evidence
supported the conviction, he again refused to decide unnecessary issues.
United States V. Poston
902 F.2d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, R.B. Ginsburg, Silberman
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Conviction
Judge Thomas addressed several statutory, evidentiary, and constitutional issues
before affirming this conviction for aiding and abetting possession of PCP. He carefully
noted the limited nature of an appellate court's role and refused to contort a criminal
statute to achieve a certain result the law would not allow. In a particularly careful,
exhaustive opinion, Judge Thomas rejected the argument that the defendant had been
denied effective assistance of counsel since he had selected new counsel one day before trial
and counsel had stated he was prepared. Judge Thomas ruled that sufficient evidence
existed to support the conviction and rejected the contention that a promise by police to
"put in a good word" about the defendant's cooperation did not amount to a promise that
the prosecution would request reduction in his sentence.
United States V. Long
905 F.2d 1572 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, Silberman, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Reversal/Affirmance of Convictions
Judge Thomas refused to consider one appeal because the notice of appeal was filed
one day late, depriving the court of jurisdiction. He remanded the case to the district court
to determine whether she should receive an extension. He outlined the limited role of an
appellate court and reversed Long's conviction for using a firearm in the commission of a
drug offense "because the government failed to adduce any evidence suggesting that Long
actually or constructively possessed the revolver." After a careful analysis, he gave the word
"use" a concrete and logical definition rather than a "loose, transitive one." He affirmed
Long's conviction for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. He also ruled that a
telephone call received during the search and arrest asking whether Long "still had any
stuff" and wanted to buy "a fifty" was not hearsay because it was not intended as an
assertion about Long's drug distribution. Judge Silberman wrote a concurring opinion.
United States V. Harrison
No.89-3152 (April 19, 1991)
United States V. Black
No.89-3153 (April 19, 1991)
United States V. Butler
No.89-3154 (April 19, 1991)
Panel: Thomas, Mikva, Edwards
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Convictions
Three defendants were tried together and convicted of possessing and intending to
distribute cocaine and of using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense.
Harrison challenged the district court's refusal to try him separately. Refusing to "lightly
disturb a district court's decision to deny severance," Judge Thomas applied the appropriate
standard, carefully distinguishing seemingly analogous decisions from several other
jurisdictions, and concluded that "[b]ecause Harrison has not demonstrated that he failed
to receive a fair trial, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of his
motion for severance."
Black asserted that his right against self-incrimination was violated when Harrison's
lawyer called him to testify knowing that he would claim this Fifth Amendment right and
refuse to do so. The trial judge did not require Black to assert this privilege on the witness
stand before the jury but settled the issue in a private conference with the lawyers. Judge
Thomas held that since Black had not preserved the right to appeal this issue, the court
would apply only a "plain error" standard. Since the "case against Black was particularly
strong," Judge Thomas concluded that "[w]hatever error might have occurred is far too
insubstantial to permit reversal under a claim not properly preserved."
Butler challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction on the
firearms charge. Judge Thomas relied on his own opinion in United States V. Long, holding
that to establish that a defendant used or caried a firearm, the government must prove that
he "actually or constructively possessed it." Since Butler had not actually possessed a
firearm, the question was whether "the jury could reasonably have found that Butler
constructively" possessed it. Judge Thomas found that they had.
United States V. Halliman
923 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
Panel: Thomas, R.B. Ginsburg, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Conviction
In this search and seizure case, Judge Thomas held that exigent circumstances
justified a warrantless search of a hotel room, that officers had properly seized drugs and
other evidence even though a defendant's consent to search was invalid, and that improper
admission of drugs as evidence at trial against a second defendant did not unfairly prejudice
that defendant. This case involved multiple defendants, complicated facts, and narrow
points of law regarding search and seizure as well as joinder of parties and severance of
actions. During his careful analysis, Judge Thomas avoided answering unnecessary
questions and distinguished seemingly applicable law from other jurisdictions.
United States V. Shabazz
No.90-3244 (May 28, 1991)
Panel: Thomas, Sentelle, Henderson
Vote:
Two individuals pleaded guilty to drug offenses involving the drug dilaudid, a
prescription drug, which contains hydromorphone, a controlled substance. Their sentences
were calculated under the federal sentencing guidelines by the gross weight of the former,
not the net weight of the latter. The guidelines say that, for purposes of sentence
calculation, the weight of a controlled substance is the "entire weight of any mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance" unless otherwise
specified. Judge Thomas noted attempts by other jurisdictions to define "mixture or
substance." Since one of those attempts, by the 7th Circuit, had been accepted for review
by the Supreme Court, Judge Thomas limited his analysis by concluding that the criteria of
either approach were met in the case before him. "[W]e have no doubt that a 'mixture' is
present." He also rejected the argument that another provision of the sentencing guidelines
required an approach different than that employed by the district court since that reading
"is textually awkward and produces absurd results." This is another example of how Judge
Thomas employs traditional canons of statutory construction. He began with the text of the
guidelines and the most natural reading of that text.
The appellant argued that the particular guideline under which he was sentenced
violated its own underlying sentencing statute. Judge Thomas used an appropriately
deferential standard: "We may set aside the guideline, therefore, only if it contravenes an
'unambiguously expressed intent of Congress' or is unreasonable." He upheld it.
B. Administrative Law
Int'l Union, United Mine Workers V. Federal Mine Safety & Health Admin.
931 F.2d 908 (1991)
Panel: Thomas, Buckley, Williams
Vote:
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration granted a mine operator's
petition to modify a mandatory safety standard banning the use of high-voltage electrical
cables within 150 feet of a mine's working face. An administrative law judge and the
Assistant Secretary of Labor approved the decision. Applying the "arbitrary and capricious"
standard, Judge Thomas carefully reviewed the Assistant Secretary's decisionmaking process
and concluded that his opinion "[t]hough cryptic. was not arbitrary and capricious" and that
the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Buogiorno V. Sullivan
912 F.2d 504 (1990)
Panel: Thomas, D.H. Ginsburg, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Reversal of Invalidation of HHS Rule
The National Health Service Corps provides scholarships to pay for medical
education in exchange for a commitment by recipients to work after graduation in medically
understaffed areas. The Secretary of Health and Human Services can waive this obligation
under certain circumstances. In this case, a recipient of more than $38,000 in scholarship
assistance assigned to practice in Arizona or Oklahoma sought a waiver, citing his wife's
medical condition and the hardship relocation would impose. The Corps denied the waiver
and the recipient brought suit, challenging the rule on its face and as applied. The district
court held that the regulation was facially invalid. Judge Thomas reversed, holding that the
district court should have deferred to the agency's reasonable construction of the rule. He
applied traditional canons of construction to determine reasonableness, looking first to the
words of the rule itself, concluding that "we must uphold the agency's challenged rule unless
the rule is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute."
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. V. Busey
No.90-1373 (June 14, 1991)
Panel: Thomas, Buckley, Williams
Vote: 2-1 Approval of Agency Action
Citizens challenged the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of Toledo's
planned airport expansion. The agency defined its goal as helping to launch a new cargo
hub in Toledo and, therefore, only considered two of five alternatives outlined in the
environmental impact statement filed by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority: approving
the expansion as proposed or taking no action at all. The petitioners argued this gave
insufficient consideration to alternative sites. Judge Thomas, joined by Judge Williams, held
that "the FAA acted reasonably in defining the purpose of its action, in eliminating
alternatives that would not achieve it, and in discussing (with the required do-nothing
option) the proposal that would. The agency has there complied with NEPA [the National
Environmental Policy Act]." He held that this statute "commands agencies to imbue their
decisionmaking, through the use of certain procedures, with our country's commitment to
environmental salubrity [It] does not mandate particular consequences. [F]ederal judges
correspondingly enforce the statute by ensuring that agencies comply with [its] procedures,
and not by trying to coax agency decisionmakers to reach certain results." Judge Thomas
also held that the FAA's action was valid under the Department of Transportation Act, the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act, and all but one of the regulations promulgated by
the Council on Environmental Quality.
Judge Buckley dissented in part, concluding that the agency was required to inquire
into the feasibility of alternative sites and, by failing to do so, "the agency sidestepped its
obligation" under NEPA.
Doe V. Sullivan
No.91-5019 (July 16, 1991)
Panel: R.B. Ginsburg, Wald, Thomas
Vote: Affirms district court dismissal of complaint 2-1
On December 21, 1990, the Food and Drug Administration issued a regulation
permitting the FDA Commissioner to authorize the use by the Department of Defense
(DOD) of unapproved, investigational drugs on military personnel in certain combat-
related situations, without first obtaining informed consent. DOD sought and obtained
informed consent waivers for two investigational drugs considered important for countering
a chemical and biological weapons attack. A serviceman stationed in Saudi Arabia during
Operation Desert Shield and his wife challenged the regulation on its face and as-allied on
January 11, 1991. Operation Desert Shield became Operation Desert Storm on January 15,
the district court dismissed the complaint on January 31, President Bush announced a
ceasefire on February 27, and DOD notified FDA that its need for using the two drugs
without informed consent had ended on March 15. Neither FDA nor DOD seek
withdrawal of the regulation itself. The United States moved to dismiss as moot the appeal
of the district court's decision. Judge Ginsburg, joined by Judge Wald, rejected this
argument since the controversy is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The majority
proceeded to affirm the order dismissing the complaint.
Judge Thomas dissented on the mootness question. He contended that the lawsuit
"grew directly and solely out of the events leading up to, and culminating in, the allied
nations' recent victory over Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. Now that the war has ended,
the Does' dispute with the defendants is purely hypothetical." He wrote further: "The rule
is no longer in play. Doe thus will not be subjected to the rule, and he retains no live,
personal stake in the outcome of this suit that challenges it Because I believe that we
have no power to decide this lawsuit, I express no view of the merits." Judge Thomas
believed the case was moot because there was no reasonable likelihood that the appellant
would ever again be subjected to the challenged rule. He wrote that "it is not enough that
a war involving chemical weapons may occur at some time in the future."
A/S Ivarans Rederi V. United States
No.90-1169 (July 16, 1991)
Panel: Thomas, Edwards, Randolph
Vote: Unanimous Denial of Petition to Review Agency Decision
Article 21(a) of the Atlantic Agreement, which governs shipping between the United
States and Brazil, states that disputes "which cannot be resolved by signators of this
Agreement shall be placed in arbitration." The court had previously held that the Federal
Maritime Commission retained power to ultimately decide such disputes. In this case,
Judge Thomas concluded that, when interpretation of the Agreement itself was an issue,,
the Commission could decide a case in the first instance. He found that provision in the
Agreement were "at least silent, and perhaps internally inconsistent" on an important point
and held: "This is where our job ends and the agency's begins. Once we determine that a
filed contract is silent or ambiguous on a particular question, we must defer to the agency's
reasonable construction of the contract's terms." Applying this standard, Judge Thomas
found the agency's interpretation on the point in question to be reasonable.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
926 F.2d 1206 (1991)
Panel: Williams, Wald, Thomas
Vote: Unanimous Reversal of Agency Decision
The "rate of return on equity" is a component of cost-of-service ratemaking. A gas
company filed for a rate increase. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chose a
15.1% figure by including information from an irrelevant prior time period. The D.C.
Circuit found this arbitrary and capricious, reversed and remanded to the agency. FERC
again chose 15.1% and in this case the court, in an opinion by Judge Stephen Williams,
again found the approach arbitrary and capricious and again reversed and remanded.
Judge Thomas agreed that FERC had been arbitrary and capricious and concurred
"only reluctantly in the final disposition," but felt this case almost required the court to
dictate the decision to the agency. He felt that the agency sought "not just a second, but
a third bite at the apple." He wrote: "The issue, then, is not whether this court may set a
rate of return in the first instance when FERC has repeatedly failed to justify the rate it
selects; rather, the issue is whether this court may order FERC to set the rate of return
compelled by its own precedents when FERC has repeatedly failed to justify a deviation from
those precedents."
Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. V. Interstate Commerce Commission
No.90-1053 (May 10, 1991)
Panel: Mikva, Williams, Thomas
Vote: 2-1 Upholding Agency Action
The Interstate Commerce Act states that transportation "by a ferry" is exempt from
the Commission's jurisdiction. A shipping company had received temporary authority to
transport passengers in Long Island Sound but asked the Commission to dismiss its
application for a permanent license based on this exemption. It agreed. On review, the
D.C. Circuit could not determine the Commission's interpretation and remanded for more
explanation. The Commission explained further, reaffirmed its decision, and decided it
need not comply with the environmental review procedures under two environmental
statutes. In an opinion by Chief Judge Abner Mikva, the court affirmed.
Judge Thomas agreed that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. He dissented on the
remaining issues, however, because he believed the court had no jurisdiction to consider
those claims. He argued that the party challenging the claimed exemption lacked standing.
"Conspicuous in its absence from the national transportation policy is any allusion to our
nation's environmental needs, and the Commission would be hard pressed to fit
environmental concerns as such within the language of the statute." That is, a party
properly raising one claim does not necessarily qualify to raise the other; the Interstate
Commerce Commission could redress the one, but not the other.
C. Labor Relations
Otis Elevator Co. V. Secretary of Labor
921 F.2d 1285 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, Wald, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Agency Citation for Safety Violations
This opinion is a model of judicial restraint. A company servicing the elevators of
two mining companies challenged safety violation citations from the Mine Safety and Health
Administration. In this complicated case, Judge Thomas avoided addressing unnecessary
issues, sorted through difficult questions concerning application of canons of statutory
construction, distinguished inapplicable precedents from other jurisdictions, and declined
the invitation to decide the case on purely policy grounds. He determined that the elevator
company was an "operator" within the meaning of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act.
He affirmed one citation since the Administrative Law Judge's finding was supported by
substantial evidence. He refused to address the second citation because the elevator
company had failed to pursue proper procedures for contesting it earlier.
D. Civil Procedure
National Treasury Employees Union V. United States
927 F.2d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
Panel: Thomas Mikva, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Denial of Preliminary Injunction
Federal employees argued that a statutory ban on honoraria violated their First
Amendment rights. Judge Thomas ruled that the district court properly found that the
employees would not suffer irreparable harm by complying with the ban and that, therefore,
the constitutional challenge to the ban should continue. An activist judge would likely have
gone on to address the substantive constitutional questions as well, but Judge Thomas
deemed his task complete by ruling on the propriety of the injunction.
Western Maryland Railway Co. V. Harbor Insurance Co.
910 F.2d 960 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, Edwards, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Reversal of Dismissal
In this case, the district court dismissed two lawsuits by railroads against their
insurers for failure of each plaintiff to join the other as an indispensable party. Judge
Thomas held that the railroads were not indispensable parties in each other's lawsuits since
failure to join would not subject them to a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations.
Therefore, their actions should not have been dismissed.
E. Antitrust
United States V. Baker Hughes, Inc.
908 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, R.B. Ginsburg, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance of Denial of Injunction Against Acquisition
A Finnish manufacturer of hardrock hydraulic underground drilling rigs sought to
acquire a French manufacturer of such rigs. The United States challenged the proposed
acquisition and sought an injunction, charging it would lessen competition in violation of
section 7 of the Clayton Act. The district court denied the injunction and Judge Thomas
affirmed. In doing so, he soundly rejected the legal standard urged by the government.
Noting that the district court had not articulated the legal standard it employed, Judge
Thomas held that it had "effectively applied a standard faithful to section 7" and concluded
that the district court's application of this legal standard was not clearly erroneous.
F. Trade Regulation
Alpo Petfoods, Inc. V. Ralston Purina Co.
913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Panel: Thomas, Edwards, Sentelle
Vote: Unanimous Affirmance on Liability/Reversal on Damages
In this case, Alpo charged that Ralston falsely claimed that its Puppy Chow products
can lessen the severity of a crippling joint condition in dogs. Ralston charged that Alpo
falsely claimed its Puppy Food contains the formula preferred by vets "two to one over the
leading puppy food." After a lengthy bench trial, the district court found that both
companies' claims violated the Lanham Act, enjoined such claims, and ordered the
companies to issue corrective statements. It further awarded Alpo $10.4 million in
damages, plus costs and attorneys' fees, by doubling the amount Ralston spent on its ad
campaign. Judge Thomas found that the district court properly applied the Lanham Act
to factual findings that were not clearly erroneous.
Judge Thomas vacated and remanded the district court's judgment with respect to
remedies. Since Ralston's conduct did not amount to "willful, targeted wrongdoing," a
monetary award should be based on actual damages to Alpo, not on profits to Ralston.
Further, Judge Thomas held that Ralston was entitled to actual damages that the company
could prove. Since attorneys' fees are only available in cases of willful or bad-faith conduct,
he reversed the district court's decision on that issue.
G. Agency
Mayeske V. International Assoc. of Firefighters
905 F.2d 1548 (1990)
Panel: Thomas, Wald, R.B. Ginsburg
Vote: Unanimous Reversal of Summary Judgment for Union
A union established an education program for its members, funded with grants from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Its director and staff were considered "grant
employees" and not covered by the the union's pension plan. In 1985, the union's officers
became concerned that its plan might violate an Internal Revenue Code antidiscrimination
provision by covering an insufficient percentage of employees. Federal law provided that
employees whose pension benefits are included in a collective bargaining agreement could
be excluded from the calculation under the IRS's antidiscrimination provision. The union
unsuccessfully sought to persuade another union to represent the education program staff
for the purpose of bargaining over pension benefits. The union then asked the education
program staff to form a separate association for that purpose. They refused. The union
later eliminated the learning program and the director lost her job.
Judge Thomas began his discussion by noting the district court's "flawed premise: that
Mayeske was not the [union's] employee." He avoided addressing other points raised by
the district court because they too rested on the premise that Mayeske was not an
employee.
CONCLUSION
Judge Thomas' judicial opinions are the best way to assess what he will do as an
associate justice on the Supreme Court. They are the best indicator of how views expressed
as a private citizen or an executive branch official, no matter how provocative or strongly
urged, carry over into his judicial performance. Some individuals may not know how to
distinguish personal opinions from judicial performance, but Clarence Thomas does. It is
certainly tempting, for purposes of the political battle surrounding the nomination, simply
to insist that his academic writings or speeches represent the views or positions he will force
on his future colleagues on the Supreme Court. Yet this is, of course, not true at all and
reading his judicial decisions proves the point well.
Judge Thomas' judicial opinions evidence his essential devotion to judicial restraint
in several ways. First, he adheres to precedent. In United States v. Halliman, for example,
he outlined his own circuit's rule on an important issue differed from that in several other
circuits and applied the relevant precedent. In a 1991 decision by Chief Judge Abner
Mikva, the court struck down the 24-hour ban on indecency imposed by the Federal
Communications Commission. Judge Thomas joind the opinion. That court had held just
three years before that a reasonable period of time during which indecency could be
broadcast was constitutionally mandated. Therefore, the court had no choice in the later
case but to adhere to its own precedent. Though this decision's result, on the one hand,
troubles some conservatives, Judge Thomas' clear devotion to the rule of law, on the other
hand, pleases conservatives who believe that law and not politics should guide judges.
Second, Judge Thomas avoids answering questions or addressing issues unnecessary
for deciding the particular case before the court. In Otis Elevator Co. V. Secretary of Labor,
he resisted three opportunities to answer such questions or to apply rules to circumstances
outside the facts of that case. In United States V. Halliman, Judge Thomas wrote that "we
need not decide whether the district court erred in predicating its probable cause
determination on the collective knowledge of the police force as a whole."
Third, Judge Thomas has declined the invitation to decide cases on purely policy
grounds. Also in Otis Elevator, after sorting through difficult questions concernins
application of cannons of statutory construction and distinguishing inapplicable precedents
from other jurisdictions, Judge Thomas refused to depart from the law and to decide the
case on nothing but policy grounds. He wrote: "This court is ill-equipped to make the kind
of expert policy judgment necessary to evaluate the relative merit of these competing
accounts."
Fourth, Judge Thomas has paid close attention to issues affecting the court's
jurisdiction. In United States V. Long, he held that late filing of a notice of appeal deprived
the court of jurisdiction. In Doe V. Sullivan, he wrote in dissent that the controversy before
the court was moot and, therefore, "[b]ecause I believe that we have no power to decide
this lawsuit, I express no view of the merits." In Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. V. Interstate
Commerce Commission, Judge Thomas dissented and argued that the plaintiff lacked
standing to challenge an agency decision.
Fifth, Judge Thomas emphasizes a narrow role for an appellate court. In United
States V. Poston, for example, he wrote that "[t]his court's role in assessing a sufficiency of
the evidence claim on appeal is sharply circumscribed." In the same case, he noted that "[a]
trial judge enjoys great discretion in ruling on a motion for a continuance an appellate
court's role is limited to determining whether the judge 'clearly abused' his discretion."
Likewise, in United States V. Long, Judge Thomas wrote that "[o]verturning a jury's
determination of guilt on the ground of insufficient evidence is not a task we undertake
lightly. As an appellate court, we owe tremendous deference to a jury verdict." And in
United States V. Harrison, he wrote: "When we review a criminal conviction for sufficiency
of evidence, of course, we do so very deferentially."
Sixth, Judge Thomas utilizes traditional standards of interpretation construction. In
United States V. Rogers, he construed the Federal Rules of Evidence using "traditional tools"
of statutory construction and began his analysis, "as we do with any statutoe, with the
language of the rules themselves." Similarly, in Buogiorno V. Sullivan, in determining
whether an agency's interpretation of a rule was reasonable, Judge Thomas began with the
words of the rule itself. In United States V. Shabazz, his guiding principle in reviewing a
provision of the federal sentencing guidelines was the intent of Congress.
Both conservatives and liberals have concluded that, no matter what their opinion
of views he expressed in speeches or articles, he applies the law in his capacity as a judge.
Legal analyst Gordon Crovitz wrote that Judge Thomas' opinions "are textbook examples
of judicial restraint." The leftist Alliance for Justice examined his opinions and had to
conclude that "[h]is decisions overall do not indicate an overly idealogical [sic] tilt." These
opinions are the most important part of Clarence Thomas' overall record and the
constitutional process for selecting Supreme Court justices must focus on what that part of
his record has to offer.
Coalitions for America
Paul M. Weyrich
717 Second Street, N.E.
National Chairman
Capitol Hill
Eric Licht
President
Washington, D.C. 20002
Library Court
(202) 546-3003
Social Issues
Stanton
Defense & Foreign Policy
Kingston
Budget & Economic Policy
721 Group
JUDICIAL NOMINATION FACT SHEET
Judicial & Legal Policy
Clarence Thomas' Articles, Interviews and Speeches
Siena Group
Catholic Coalition
The Omega Alliance
Young Activist Coalition
Resistance Support Alliance
Clarence Thomas has a long public record; dissatisfaction at the dearth
Freedom Fighter Policy
of writings by any past Supreme Court nominees cannot find repetition this
Jewish/Conservative Alliance
time around. He has expressed his views on a variety of subjects and
provided candid insights into his personal character. As one reporter put
it, "Judge Thomas has left an extensive paper trail" (Washington Times,
7/2/91, p.A1).
That trail now includes both a judicial and a non-judicial record. Of course, different
source materials have different relevance to an individual's judicial philosophy. If personal
opinions or intellectual musings expressed in an article or speech carried as much weight
for a judge as existing law and the facts of actual cases, such an activist could not enjoy the
citizens' support and has no place on the bench. Clarence Thomas has demonstrated,
through his personal and professional expressions, a more restrained view. He has, for
example, said that while he personally opposes numerically based remedies to discrimination
such as goals or timetables, his agency continued to implement and enforce them because
the Supreme Court had approved such measures.
Clarence Thomas listed 71 items in the bibliography he submitted to the Senate
Judiciary Committee at the time of his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Following
a brief index are, in chronological order, summaries of 30 of these items, plus a book
chapter and a speech delivered at the Heritage Foundation not listed in that bibliography.
This fact sheet is intended as a guide to Judge Thomas' non-judicial writings; a separate fact
sheet available from Coalitions for America summarizes his judicial opinions.
Certain themes and topics are prominant throughout Judge Thomas' writings. He
believes passionately in the inherent worth and equality of every individual person. His
personal experiences while growing up - a hostile social and political structure in the
segregated South, but a loving yet disciplined set of family and friends - shape how he
understands the problems facing minorities and the prescriptions for change. He believes
in the inherent utility of traditional values such as hard work, discipline, honesty, and
character. No one who reads his writings and studies his career can claim he follows the
dictates of any party or any employer. Time magazine (7/15/91, p.18) titled its article on
his nomination "Marching to a Different Drummer."
1
INDEX
Topic
Items
Abraham Lincoln
10, 11, 17, 25, 26, 29
Affirmative Action
1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, 24, 32
Affirmative Action VS. Quotas
3, 6, 24, 32
Assessment of Reagan Administration
2, 5, 17, 24
Blacks as Individuals, Not Interest Group
17, 18, 21
Brown V. Board of Education
10, 24, 31
Civil Rights Establishment
15, 23, 26
"Colorblind"
11, 13, 14, 21
Conservative/Republican View of Blacks
17, 23
Constitution and Declaration Linked
10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 27, 31
Duty of Government to Ensure Civil Rights
1, 2, 3
Economic Liberty
20
Education
30
EEOC's Performance
2, 32
Equality
10, 11, 17, 25, 29, 31
Goals and Timetables
9
Group VS. Individual Focus
3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 29
Independent Thinking Among Blacks
1, 7, 17, 23
Martin Luther King
11, 15, 17, 25, 26
Meaning of Discrimination
2
Natural Law
11, 15, 17, 20, 25, 27, 28, 31
Original Intention
10, 11
Personal Character
8, 12, 17, 30, 32
Political Theory
10, 11, 17, 24
Racial Preferences
6, 16, 24, 28
Racism
5, 6
Rejecting Easy Solutions
1, 8, 9, 24
Role of the Courts
24
Self-Help
12, 13, 14, 22, 23
Separation of Powers
24
Transformation of EEOC
4, 9
2
1.
"Discrimination and Its Effects"
21 Integrated Education 204 (1983)
This article is an edited version of a speech by EEOC Chairman Thomas before the
"New Coalition" in Chicago on August 17, 1983. He did three things in this speech. First,
he began with reference to his upbringing and the experience of his grandparents - cited
here as "perfect examples of what discrimination can do." Second, he repeated his
unequivocal position that "the federal government has the primary responsibility to protect
the civil and constitutional rights of all citizens. This responsibility must not be abdicated
and cannot be delegated." Third, he rejected cliches and outdated thinking. The political,
social, and economic world has changed and the "problem of discrimination also has
changed." Therefore, "solutions are not always as clear-cut or easy [S]hort-term resolution
may not be in our long-term interest: to transform a national ideal into an enduring reality."
He urged his professional audience: "I want here to urge you that you insist on your
intellectual freedom--that you not permit the rigidity of [the current political] orthodoxy to
straightjacket your thinking." He also expressed his views of affirmative action: "In light of
real world facts of life, there should be no reasoned disagreement over the underlying
premise of affirmative action: that is, that we simply must do more than just stop
discriminating if we are ever going to stop the effects of a history of discrimination. But,
we must have the courage to recognize that there is room to question the effectiveness and
legality of certain affirmative action programs and policies."
He concluded with these words: "You must not be afraid of being disliked and must
resist functioning in lockstep with others simply because doing so is more convenient. We
cannot accept the implications of the new orthodoxy which exists in America today--an
orthodoxy which says that we must be intellectual clones. We fought too long and too hard
to make people stop saying Blacks looked alike--but I say it is a far greater evil that many
say Blacks think alike."
2.
"Interview with Clarence Thomas"
U.S. News & World Report, March 14, 1983, p.67
On discrimination in hiring: "It's fair to say that job discrimination is still very, very
serious, although it is not nearly as blatant and obvious as it was 20 years ago."
On perception of Reagan Administration record on civil rights: "Although I believe
the perception is unwarranted, we made some mistakes in this administration that may have
fostered the perception that attacking discrimination is not a top priority. One is the Bob
Jones University fiasco, in which the administration argued that the [IRS] does not have the
power to revoke that institution's tax-exempt statute, despite the school's ban on interracial
dating."
3
On the EEOC's performance: "The number of cases we are handling is actually
slightly higher than during the Carter administration. And, incidentally, we've kept our
budget pretty much intact at a time when many agencies have suffered reductions."
On "reverse discrimination": "Also, you should remember that there really isn't any
such thing as reverse discrimination. Title VII and the other statutes designed to prevent
discrimination apply to all individuals--not just to women or blacks or Hispanics or the
handicapped. They apply to whites as well. So whites who feel that they are discriminated
against because of race have the same cause of action under Title VII as other groups do.
It is straight-out discrimination--not reverse discrimination."
On affirmative action: "We can't dismiss the fact that there was and is discrimination
in this society. As a result of that discrimination, certain groups have not been permitted
to take advantage of all society has to offer You just can't push that aside casually and say
that from now on we will just play fair or compete equally because something has occurred
in the past that precludes us from being equal and being able to compete equally. So we
still must work at correcting some of the problems that have resulted from past
discrimination."
On quotas: "I personally am not in favor of them I also have problems with any
system that says that we are going to hire you or give you an advantage specifically because
you are one color or another. That kind of system worked against minorities in the past."
On employers' excuse of too few qualified minorities: "I simply don't buy those kinds
of excuses. Growing up in a segregated society, I have known too many people who were
bright, well qualified and willing to work who could not land the position they deserved.
I will admit, though, that we have some very serious problems with the education of
minorities in this country."
On the need for the EEOC: "[W]e're going to need an EEOC for a very long time
to come. Protecting the civil rights of citizens, in my view, is a prime responsibility of
government."
3.
"Current Litigation Trends and Goals at the EEOC"
34 Labor Law Journal 208 (April 1983)
Two aspects of this article are important. First, Clarence Thomas articulated "the
fundamental principles which we all share in the area of civil rights." Those are:
One of the essential functions of the federal government is to
ensure that the civil rights of all Americans be
protected Under our statutes and the Constitution, every
individual is entitled to be judged on the basis of individual
merit without consideration of group characteristics such as
race, sex, national origin, or religion.
4
Second, he noted that while "[n]o one in his right mind seriously questions the legal
and moral bankruptcy of discrimination[, the] same unanimity of opinion does not exist for
affirmative action." He wrote: "The starting point in defining affirmative action is the
recognition that it is a further remedy designed to place a class, not specific victims of past
discrimination, in the place where it theoretically would have been but for discrimination."
As he would continue to do during his career, Thomas distinguished between affirmative
action and quotas. "Of course, any remedy which overemphasizes actual success, as
opposed to good faith efforts or intent, can be criticized as a quota. Much of the heated
debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion
between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms
interchangeably."
4.
"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
Reflections on a New Philosophy"
15 Stetson Law Review 29 (1985)
This article was adapted from an address by EEOC Chairman Thomas at an April
1985 conference on employment law sponsored by Stetson University College of Law and
the Florida bar. He described both the form and substance of the agency he inherited. On
the former, he said: "One of the first gifts I received was a report from the General
Accounting Office, which found, as so many others had, that our agency was an
administrative and managerial disaster We had an automated payroll system and a
manual personnel system, which meant that we often paid dead people and former
employees."
Chairman Thomas then went into detail about the shift in enforcement philosophy
from a system emphasizing quick disposition of cases. He criticized that system as "unfair
to both the charging party and the employer [making] a sham of the notion that our
ultimate goal was, and is, to address and remedy discrimination. Finally, this approach
totally destroyed any hope of an effective litigation program, because such a program relies
on fully investigated cases." He described the new approach toward remedies: "The bottom
line is that we intend to obtain the maximum relief available under the statute to make the
charging party whole and to eradicate the discriminatory conduct."
He countered the opposition: "Those who insist on arguing that the principal of
equal opportunity, the cornoerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain. groups
have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area. I bristle at the
thought, for example, that it is morally proper to protest against minority racial preferences
in South Africa while arguing for such preferences here."
He concluded: "I would also make it clear that discrimination does not explain all
the problems of minorities, women, or anyone else in our society. No one has all the
answers, regardless of how much he claims to know. My goal is to take reality into account
while enforcing the law."
5
5.
"Black America Under the Reagan Administration:
A Symposium of Black Conservatives"
Policy Review, Fall 1985
On the Reagan Administration's record: "Certainly the administration made some
mistakes. A lot of us were really depressed over that Bob Jones fiasco. We knew that the
appearance of what we were trying to do with the Voting Rights Act would be trotted out."
On school prayer: "[M]y mother says that when they took God out of the schools,
the schools went to hell. She may be right. Religion is certainly a source of positive
values, and we need as many positive values in the schools as we can get."
On the welfare state's impact on the family: "It doesn't offer any incentives for
families to stay together. And it certainly accommodates the disintegration of the family I
was always taught that you should be responsible for your offspring. The government didn't
have a thing to do with it. No government policy prevented me from having kids out of
wedlock. These were values I learned. Now, it seems, we have a free-for-all society where
everything is all right as long as it makes you feel good."
On set-asides of government contracts for minority firms: "I don't think we should
have set-asides, I don't think we should have any policies based on race So I would favor
wiping out set-asides, but only, to use an analogy of Walter Williams', if we beat away all
the other pigs at the government trough."
On racism in America: "But the most devastating form of racism is the feeling that
blacks are inferior, so let's help them. What we had in Georgia under Jim Crow was not
as bad as this. This racism based on sympathy says that because of your race, we will give
you excuses for not preparing yourself and not being as good as can be. White parents tell
their kids to study hard and get into college, and black kids are told they don't have to
worry about their SAT scores. That's wrong."
6.
"Abandon the Rules; They Cause Injustice"
USA Today, September 5, 1985, p.8A
In this opinion piece, Clarence Thomas drew a clear distinction between group
preferences and non-discrimination. "Moreover, the notion that blacks must be given
preferences in order to succeed and should not be judged by the same standards as other
people is founded upon the racist assumption that blacks are inherently inferior. No matter
what the benefits might be, conceding this assumption is far too great a price to pay."
He also distinguished between affirmative action and quotas, goals, timetables, and
other types of group preferences. Failing to draw this distinction, he wrote "we will fail to
address the real issues and condemn the most disadvantaged individuals in our midst to an
even bleaker future."
6
7.
"Pluralism Lives: Blacks Don't All Think Alike"
Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1985
In this opinion piece, Clarence Thomas sounded another theme he has often
repeated since: there is a substantial gulf between black leaders and the average black
American on a wide range of issues. He wrote that "the real issue is why, unlike other
individuals in this country, black individuals are not entitled to have and express points of
view that differ from the collective hodgepodge of ideas that we supposedly share because
we are members of the same race. There seems to be an obsession with painting blacks
as an unthinking group of automatons, with a common set of views, opinions and ideas By
insisting on one point of view, this new orthodoxy stifles serious debate and the possibility
of any meaningful discussion of the countless problems facing blacks today."
8.
"Remembering an Island of Hope"
19 The St. Croiz Review 7 (December 1986)
In these remarks that first appeared in the Lincoln Review (Spring 1986), Clarence
Thomas shared a great deal of personal reflections that provide insight into him as a
person. He began by insisting upon "what we need now, at a bare minimum--as an
indispensable starting point: God, values, morality, and of course, education."
Remembering his education in Catholic schools, he continued: "There were strict
rules, discipline, and demanding teachers. There was a great emphasis on learning what
was right--then doing it. Very few if any of us liked it then. I would dare say all of us
want it for our children today in this confused and confusing world."
He praised the self-sacrifice and dedication of the nuns who taught him and related
that to the prevailing thinking about helping blacks. "There is no doubt in my mind that
the teaching achievements of our nuns are infinitely more compassionate than mere
sympathy or pity. If you don't believe me, look at our city today. Look at the condition
of blacks in America. After all the touching television programs--after all the not-so-well
thought out governmental programs--just look at our condition Have sympathy and pity
worked, have the promises of instant cures and quick fixes worked?"
He shared more insights into his character. "I have often been accused of being
controversial. In many ways, our nuns are responsible for this. They have given me
confidence in my intellect and my judgment. They have taught me to believe in God and
the word of God. For man, they taught me that understanding and comprehension are
necessary But my training by the nuns and my grandparents paid off. I decided, then, at
the ripe old age of 16, that it was better to be respected than liked. Popularity is
unpredictable and vacillating. Respect is a constant and may lead to popularity but it is not
dependent upon it So I give credit where credit is due and lay the responsibility for me
7
at the doorstep of our nuns. They have taught me to be unsubmissive and unyielding in my
beliefs They made us respect each other, respect them, respect ourselves. They set a
moral, ethical, and spiritual tone that permeated our lives. They set a standard of life and
a standard for living, against which we are measured and against which we can continue to
measure ourselves and strive toward My friends, I have tried with every breath of my body,
with all my strength to live up to what I believe in."
"I have been called a conservative, because I feel strongly that without education,
blacks don't have a prayer; because I believe values and morality have at least as much to
do with babies having babies as anything else; that hard work and discipline do play a
significant role in whether a person is successful or not. Based on what they try to make
me believe, the manner in which they try to destroy me in the press, other blacks don't
believe these things. Well, I could have sworn my grandparents and our nuns all but beat
these kinds of values and beliefs into me. And, applying these and familiar values in my
life has as much or more to do with my personal achievements as anything else."
"But no matter where we wind up--no matter what job we take or what position we
hold, all hope of opportunity starts with sound education and sound values It has been
said that I would turn the clock back. That's true--I would turn it back in time but forward
in progress I come before you to state my terms. I will live as I believe--as I have been
taught. That is my memorial to those who gave their lives to prepare me--to raise me. I
do not care to exist under any other terms I will have no part of this orgy of self
indulgence that is running rampant in our society. I will not be deluded into thinking that
grand promises and snake oil remedies will provide overnight solutions."
9.
"Affirmative Action Goals and Timetables: Too Tough? Not Tough Enough!"
5 Yale Law & Policy Review 402 (1987)
Chairman Thomas began this article in a way that evidenced both his commitment
to the rule of law and his practical, no-nonsense style. Noting that the Supreme Court had
recently approved various forms of race-conscious relief including goals and timetables, he
said: "The vast majority of all charges of employment discrimination now filed with the
EEOC involve violations for which goals and timetables are not appropriate as a form of
relief. Despite my personal disagreement with the Court's approval of numerical remedies,
as Chairman of the EEOC, I am nevertheless grateful that the legal debate over goals and
timetables has been resolved so that attention can be focused on the facts and the real
issues in the EEOC's battle against employment discrimination."
He outlined the Commission's shift from an approach geared toward making "quick
statistical progress" through class action suits to "a new stage in its enforcement work Now,
for the first time, the Commission has the luxury and freedom to fight to vindicate the Title
VII rights of every individual victim of discrimination. The Commission has committed
itself to a policy of seeking full relief for every victim of discrimination who files a charge."
8
Describing goals and timetables as "at best a relatively weak and limited weapon
against existing forms of discrimination," Chairman Thomas pointed out that "although
group-defined numerical relief is a somewhat imaginative extension of Title VII principles,
these remedies are fairly easy on employers." Employers themselves push for numerical
goals in a settlement agreement since "[g]iving back pay to each actual victim can be quite
expensive, but the cost of agreeing to hire a certain number of blacks or women is
generally deminimis There is, in other words, an economic incentive for an employer to
settle the case before it becomes necessary to identify actual victims." Prospective
numerical goals simply do not address past instances of discrimination. "The use of
affirmative action, rather than a victim-specific form of relief, effectively allows employers
to shift the cost of the remedy from themselves to the actual victims of their past
discrimination, who never receive the back pay and jobs to which they are entitled, and to
the qualified persons who will be deprived of an employment opportunity because someone
else was given a preference under the remedial plan."
He called "dubious" the assumption that "absent discrimination workforce
representation of all groups would precisely mirror their availability in the workforce."
Further, he cautioned that "[r]eliance on numerical targets to determine whether a past
discriminatory employer has foresworn illegal practices will sometimes lead us to overlook
continuing discrimination." He urged other "tougher means of deterrence." These include
"heavy fines and even jail sentences on discriminators who defy court injunctions against
further discrimination" and appointing a special master to oversee an employer's personnel
operations.
He concluded by repeating his view that "numerically based affirmative action is the
easy, but rarely the best, solution" because it is easy on the employer and tough on actual
victims of discrimination, precisely the wrong ordering of priorities.
10.
"Toward a 'Plain Reading' of the Constitution--The
Declaration of Independence in Constitutional Interpretation"
30 Howard Law Journal 691 (1987)
In the year of the bicentennial of the Constitution, Chairman Thomas asked: "What
do Black Americans have to celebrate?" And in this article, he examined "which principles
dictate the policy of action towards Black Americans," those found in "the founding
documents themselves--in particular the link between the Constitution and the Declaration
of Independence." He accomplished this task by examining the Supreme Court's decision
in Dred Scott V. Sandford.
Abraham Lincoln, "the most profound critic of Dred Scott," believed that "equality
led to the principle of government by consent, limited government, majority rule, and
separation of powers Lincoln's case against slavery insisted on the principle of equality as
fundamental for America."
9
Thomas continued: "But 'the jurisprudence of original intention' cannot be
understood as sympathetic with the Dred Scott reasoning, if we regard the 'original
intention' of the Constitution to be the fulfillment of the ideals of the Declaration of
Independence, as Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and the Founders understood it. Such an
understanding of original intention will keep it from deteriorating into a defense of
constitutional sideshows such as 'states' rights."
"It is of absolute importance to preserve what is strongest in the original Civil Rights
movement: its insistence that what it demanded is what America had always promised; the
logic of American ideals required Civil Rights legislation." This means appreciating the
"higher law background" of the Constitution.
"Justice and conformity to the Constitution, not 'sensitivity,' should be the object in
race relations." Thomas criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Brown V. Board of
Education for relying on sensitivity rather than constitutional principles. "Brown was a
missed opportunity" because it rested on sentiment, sensitivity, and dependence rather than
reason, justice, and freedom. It should have been based on "moral and political principles,
as established in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, rather than on
feelings."
"But what is the ultimate American principle but that contained in the Declaration
of Independence: that all men are created equal The principle of equality is contained
within the republican principle of self-government The first principles of equality and
liberty should inspire our political and constitutional thinking Such a principled
jurisprudence would pose a major alternative to the cynical rejection of 'the laws of nature
and of nature's God' from jurisprudence, and esoteric hermeneutics rationalizing expansive
powers for the government especially the judiciary."
11.
"Address by the Honorable Clarence Thomas. on the Occasion of the
Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday"
Delivered January 16, 1987 at the U.S. Department of Justice
In this address, Chairman Thomas discussed why we should honor Dr. King and
what could unite us rather than divide us. In doing so, he discussed "another controversial
figure who also brought about for us unity on the highest basis--Abraham Lincoln." He
used Dr. King's June 1961 commencement address at Lincoln University and his 1963
Lincoln Memorial speech during the march on Washington to tie these two great men
together. He emphasized "Dr. King's confidence in America" and "the greatest resource
the civil rights movement and its successors have--the fundamental decency of the
American people."
10
12.
"A Question of Fairness" by Juan Williams
The Atlantic Monthly, February 1987, p.71
This wide-ranging article was based on interviews over several years and discusses
the author's perception of Clarence Thomas the man and Clarence Thomas the EEOC
Chairman. It attempts, largely with success, to weave a path through slogans and
stereotypes toward describing a very independent man.
So much of what motivates Clarence Thomas comes from his growing up under his
grandfather's guidance in segregation Georgia poverty. He is fiercely independent, self-
reliant, and he insists on focusing on individuals - real people with real problems, but real
people with real possibilities. Thus he takes nothing for granted, he never assumes, and he
never accepts anything without candidly assessing its validity. "Thomas is an opponent of
busing, arguing that black children gain nothing from simply sitting next to whites and can
do quite well in their own schools Affirmative action, believes, has primarily meant for
money for a few qualified blacks, usually the scions of the already well-to-do Lowering
standards on tests, he says, may help a few blacks get a few good jobs, but is also puts the
federal imprimatur on the idea that educated blacks can't compete, and therefore lends
credence to it--a loss that isn't worth the gain."
In the ongoing debate, symbolized by the argument between Booker T. Washington
and W.E.B. DuBois, between self-help and integration, Clarence Thomas is in the first
tradition. "Like Booker T. Washington, Thomas puts his faith in the ability of black people
to use their minds and their muscles to do for themselves."
"Above all--and perhaps this is the main reason why he is regarded with such disdain
by so many blacks, and so many Hispanics and women as well--Thomas refuses to see civil
rights as a matter of corporate struggle and group equity." Quotas, set-asides, and other
approaches based on group membership rather than individual discrimination are based on
assumptions of racial inferiority and do not end up helping the people who really need the
help. Fiercely independent, Clarence Thomas demanded the chance to prove himself.
As Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, and later as EEOC Chairman,
he pushed for approaches that provided this chance for others. This led him into conflict
with the Reagan Administration. "[H]e set out rather quickly to overturn the government's
policy of pressing southern states to unify their separate white and black college systems,
arguing that an end to the so-called dual system would mean an end to the historically
black colleges that had educated a majority of the nation's black professionals." Later, he
opposed the government's refusal to comply with a law requiring agencies to submit
statistics on the racial breakdown of their workforce.
"Clarence Thomas has resolved to play by the rules Thomas is consistent." The
author here quotes Thomas as saying: "My view is that the most vulnerable unit in our
society is the individual. And blacks, in my opinion being one of the most vulnerable
groups, should fight like hell to preserve individual freedoms so people can't gang up on
us."
12
In his 1961 Lincoln University address, Dr. King had said that the substance of the
American dream, as yet unfulfilled, is best expressed "in these sublime words, words lifted
to cosmic proportions 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Consent by the governed, expressed
through representative institutions, and broad suffrage naturally result.
Chairman Thomas said of Dr. King's 1963 speech that "despite the bad check
America had written black Americans, he refused to believe that the 'bank of justice' was
bankrupt." America must be held to the high standards of the Declaration and the
Constitution.
He continued: "This theme of a higher law behind the positive law is one that we
today, we lawyers, we citizens who believe in the rule of law, and we who honor Martin
Luther King need to take more seriously. For, as he maintained, American politics and the
American Constitution are unintelligible without the Declaration of Independence, and the
Declaration is unintelligible without the notion of a higher law by which we fallible men
and women can take our bearings. So when we use the standard of 'original intention,' we
must take this to mean the Constitution in light of the Declaration Those of us who are
attorneys and all of us who deal with the law as professionals must keep in mind that all
the technical training we have is in the service of those ideals."
He commented further on political theory: "But majorities can themselves abuse
power; they are legitimate majorities only insofar as they comply with the higher law
background of the Constitution."
Chairman Thomas then addressed "my fellow conservatives, many of whom have
deep reservations about honoring Dr. King." He urged them to renew their understanding
of the "natural law foundations of our Constitution" and said that "conservatives can learn
a lesson from Dr. King." He said that conservative thought is deficient when it insists on
an entirely free market: "After all, slaves or drugs can be bought and sold." He said that
"[c]onservatives need the Declaration's high standards to give them perspective, to make
them approach politics with the proper idealism and the necessary humility In striving to
preserve and bring about what is good, politics must measure itself by the standards of the
higher law, of natural rights, or else it becomes part of the problem instead of part of the
solution A nation that is not based on race, that takes its bearings by standards that
transcend race and apply to all humanity is what our fundamental ideals demand."
Finally, Chairman Thomas argued for a "color-blind reading of the Constitution."
He brought all of this to relate to his efforts at the EEOC: "Vigorous protection of
individual rights does not require the imposition of quotas or racial preference or the
creation of group rights. But a rejection of group classifications and remedies does not
mean shrinking from zealous enforcement of the law. This approach to enforcement has
its foundation in the Declaration and follows in the tradition of Dr. King."
11
15.
"American Blacks"
Commentary, April 1987, p.2
In this letter, Clarence Thomas linked themes he has often expressed: that the "civil-
rights establishment" today differs from the ideals laid down by Dr. Martin Luther King and
that "the American dream Dr. King was referring to was the Declaration of Independence."
He urged "a sober reexamination of our fundamental documents A nation that is not
based on race, that takes its bearings by standards that transcend race and apply to all
humanity, is what our fundamental ideals demand In this year of the bicentennial it would
be the greatest misfortune for the successors of the civil-rights movement not to draw on
the strongest resource, the Constitution and the higher law inspiring it."
16.
"The Case Against Quotas"
The Miami Times, May 28, 1987, p.5
Here, Clarence Thomas provided a succinct statement of his opposition to racial
preferences. "I have repeatedly stated that employers can hide behind the number of
minorities employed without ever truly providing equal employment opportunities for
individuals to be hired and rise through the ranks on their own merit. This is the basic
drawback of affirmative action plans implementing goals and timetables--the employer can
hide discrimination by showing a good bottom line. Aside from perpetuating the
perception that minorities and women need preferential treatment to get ahead, hiring to
meet a quota does not allow talented minorities and women to compete on an equal basis
for promotions and pay increases. The preoccupation with numbers as the remedy of
discrimination has the potential to undermine the ultimate goal of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act: equal employment opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin."
17.
"Why Black Americans Should Look to Conservative Policies"
The Heritage Lectures No. 119
Delivered at The Heritage Foundation on June 18, 1987
To hear the National Abortion Rights Action League tell it, this speech was a
rallying cry to pro-life activists. Not so. The portion that NARAL and the National
Organization for Women point to "with alarm" (Washington Post, 7/6/91, p.A5) constitutes
just one sentence in a nine-page speech! Yet he never mentioned abortion, privacy, or
otherwise discussed constitutional issues.
14
The author points out that Chairman Thomas was very suspicious of attempts to
"prove" discrimination with statistics. This necessarily means leaving the individual behind
and rests on faulty assumptions. These include the notion that unlawful discrimination is
the only explanation for variations in hiring or promotions among people of different races
and the assumption that blacks are inherently inferior and should not be held to the same
standards as others.
The author concludes by describing the nature of the opposition to Chairman
Thomas' nomination to a second term as EEOC Chairman in a way that may predict the
outcome of his current nomination to the Supreme Court: "The civil-rights groups seemed
reluctant to demand that Thomas be replaced even as they listed his faults. Their hesitancy
carried the day and helped to assure Thomas's confirmation."
13.
"Colorblindness"
The Wall Street Journal, February 20, 1987, p.21
Anyone who gets to know Clarence Thomas, reads what he has written, and really
listens to what he has said first learns that he is more complex and thoughtful than the
sound-bite media or lowest-common-denominator politicians attempt to portray him. In
this short letter to the editor, he makes a crucial distinction between a colorblind
Constitution and a colorblind society - a distinction central to law and government, but
almost totally foreign to the public debate. He wrote:
I firmly insist that the Constitution be interpreted in a
colorblind fashion. It is futile to talk of a colorblind society
unless this constitutional principle is first established. Hence,
I emphasize black self-help, as opposed to racial quotas and
other race-conscious legal devices that only further and deepen
the original problem.
14.
"EEOC Chief Responds to Eagle View"
Muskogee-Okmulgee Eagle, March 19, 1987
Clarence Thomas repeated his view of colorblindness and self-help in this letter to
the editor. "I have ever insisted that the Constitution be interpreted as colorblind, so that
society may someday become colorblind. Since we are some way from that ideal, I have
always looked with favor on black self-help programs as one means of giving some black
Americans the chance to lift themselves up."
13
accepted within the conservative ranks and to be treated with some degree of acceptance,
a black was required to become a caricature of sorts, providing sideshows of anti-black
quips and attacks It is not surprising, with these attitudes, that there was a general refusal
to listen to the opinions of black conservatives. In fact, it appeared often that our white
counterparts actually hid from our advice."
Liberal Hostility. He also described the hostility to black conservatives by those on
the left and in the Democratic Party. He said: "I find it intriguing that there has been a
recent chorus of pleas by many of the same people who castigated us, for open-mindedness
toward those black Democrats who have been accused of illegalities or improprieties. This
open-mindedness was certainly not available when it came to accusing and attacking black
conservatives, who merely had different ideas about what was good for black Americans and
themselves."
Chairman Thomas told of when he first arrived at the Department of Education as
the civil rights chief and a white reporter asked whether he had had a very rough life. He
responded "that I did not; that I did indeed come from very modest circumstances but that
I had lived the American dream; and that I was attempting to secure this dream for all
Americans, especially those Americans of my race who had been left out of the American
dream. Needless to say, [the reporter] wrote nothing."
Looking to the Future. He then turned to the prescription for the future: "It
appears that [black Americans] are welcomed by those who dangled the lure of the wrong
approach and we are discouraged by those who, in my view, have the right approach. But
conservatives must open the door and lay out the welcome mat if there is ever going to
be a chance of attracting black Americans. There need be no ideological concessions, just
a major attitudinal change. Conservatives must show that they care." Rejecting an
approach that treats blacks as just another interest, he called for an approach based on
vision and principles, not vexation and polls. "We must start by articulating principles of
government and standards of goodness. I suggest that we begin the search for standards
and principles with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence."
Insisting that "a connection exists between natural law standards and constitutional
government," he referenced President Abraham Lincoln's speeches opposing the Supreme
Court's infamous Dred Scott decision. Equality of rights derives from the essential and
inherent equality of all human beings. Only this "offer[s] the opportunity to be free, and
self-governing." He noted a long tradition of examining the natural law, or higher moral
principles that provide "the key to how men ought to run their lives," from St. Thomas
Aquinas to John Quincy Adams, from Martin Luther King to a recent article by Heritage
Foundation trustee Lewis Lehrman in The American Spectator. Chairman Thomas argued
that "[a]ccording to our higher law tradition, men must acknowledge each other's freedom,
and govern only by the consent of others. All our political institutions presuppose this
truth. Natural law of this form is indispensable to decent politics This approach allows
us to reassert the primacy of the individual, and establishes our inherent equality as a God-
given right. This inherent equality is the basis for aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws
and equal employment opportunity laws designed to protect individual rights The primacy
of individual rights demands that conservatives be the first to protect them."
16
Rather, in this provocative speech, EEOC Chairman Thomas addressed the problem
of race in America, the search for enduring principles and standards, and the question of
"why so many blacks think right and vote left." Everyone should read this speech, because
it contains insight into Clarence Thomas the person, Clarence Thomas the independent
thinker, and Clarence Thomas the conservative.
"Family Policy." Typically modest, Chairman Thomas said that "I have only my
experiences and modest observations to offer." He described the "family policy" followed
by the grandparents who raised him: "God was central. School, discipline, hard work, and
knowing right from wrong were of the highest priority. Crime, welfare, slothfulness, and
alcohol were enemies. But these were not issues to be debated by keen intellectuals,
bellowed about by rousing orators, or dissected by pollsters and researchers. They were a
way of life; they marked the path of survival and the escape route from squalor."
A Change in Thinking. Chairman Thomas used this speech to describe the beginning
of a change in thinking among and about black Americans. He spoke repeatedly about "the
prospects of black Americans with different ideas receiving exposure," "blacks who were
interested in approaching the problems of minorities in our society in a different way," "my
hope that we would espouse principles and policies which by their sheer force would
preempt welfare and race-conscious policies," and his hope "for an opportunity to expand
the thinking of and about black Americans."
Criticizing Conservatives. One would think that liberal interest groups would
applaud this speech, for it roundly criticized how the Reagan Administration and
conservatives treat blacks; instead, those interest groups cite, and the media report, just a
single sentence. He said: "I am of the view that black Americans will move inexorably
and naturally toward conservatism when we stop discouraging them; when they are treated
as a diverse group with differing interests; and when conservatives stand for what they
believe in rather than stand against blacks. This is not a prescription for success, but rather
an assertion that black Americans know what they want, and it is not timidity and
condescension."
Assessing his six-year tenure in the Reagan Administration, he said that "I was
insulted by the initial contact about the position [of Asst. Secretary of Education for Civil
Rights] as well as my current position I always found it curious that, even though my
background was in energy, taxation, and general corporate regulatory matters, I was not
seriously sought after to move into one of those areas." He called the approach of arguing
against affirmative action and "the welfare mentality," positions with which he nonetheless
agreed, "unnecessarily negative."
He further criticized the Reagan Administration for "failing to get out early and
positively in front of the effort to extend the [Voting Rights] Act." He also criticized "the
appearance within the conservative ranks that blacks were to be tolerated but not
necessarily welcomed. There appeared to be a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that blacks
could not be conservative Unfortunately, I would have to characterize the general attitude
of conservatives toward black conservatives as indifference It often seemed that to be
15
18.
"Jarrett Tantrum"
Chicago Sun-Times, August 27, 1987, p.48
In this short letter, Clarence Thomas repeated his view that blacks must first be
viewed as individual human beings. He wrote: "Emphasizing race consciousness above
human rights has been historically the enemy of black Americans."
19.
"Hamilton's Constitutional Vision"
Washington Times, September 2, 1987, p.A10
Clarence Thomas not only spoke here of his view on the issue of economic liberties
but also demonstrated his independence of thought. While many in the media today try to
place him and other "black conservatives" such as Professor Walter Williams in exactly the
same box, in this letter EEOC Chairman Thomas objected to Dr. Williams' view that
America's founding fathers did not guarantee economic freedoms. "Here Mr. Williams
sounds too much like Justice Thurgood Marshall in denigrating the wisdom of the
Founders." He wrote further: "Now we have come to the sad point that 'rights' have
proliferated to make their original sense meaningless, and many believe that (noble) Bill
of Rights to be something apart from the (dull) Constitution." That Constitution, Thomas
wrote, is "intended to protect individual rights--the full indivisible range, economic and civil."
20.
"Justice Marshall's Assault on the Constitution 'Exasperating"
Savannah Morning News, Sept. 18, 1987, p.6A
In this opinion piece, Chairman Thomas accomplished two things. First, he
applauded the higher law, or enduring truth, underlying the Constitution and American
political institutions. He wrote: "Fortunately, we know the Constitution and Declaration
rest on 'the laws of nature and of nature's God' and the self-evident truths of equality and
liberty that follow Bigots might persecute, the overwhelming majority could be indifferent,
but blacks could still point to the fundamental law of the land, and demand justice. As slow
as justice was, could it have been approximated without the Constitution to appeal to?"
Second, he said that "I find exasperating and incomprehensible the assault on the
Bicentennial, the Founding, and the Constitution itself by Justice Thurgood Marshall."
Marshall had argued that the principles the Founders embodied in the Constitution were
outdated and that, in Thomas' words, "the 14th Amendment had become the heart and soul
of the Constitution." He countered that "quite to the contrary of Martin Luther King,
Justice Marshall pits blacks, along with women and all other Americans other than
defenders of the Confederacy, against the Founders. As we have seen, Justice Marshall's
understanding of blacks and the Constitution stands in stark contrast to that of notable
Americans, from Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln to Dr. King."
17
21.
"The Black Experience: Rage and Reality"
Wall Street Journal, October 12, 1987
In this article, Clarence Thomas reviewed And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest
for Racial Justice, a book by black Harvard law professor Derrick Bell. In his review, he
repeated a few themes that dominate his writings. First, he distinguished between a
colorblind Constitution and a colorblind society. "Much of the current thinking on civil
rights has been crippled by the confusion between a 'colorblind society' and a 'colorblind
Constitution.' The Constitution, by protecting the rights of individuals, is colorblind. But
a society cannot be colorblind." Second, he emphasized that blacks must be viewed as
individuals, not as members of an interest group. "But justice must focus on the rational
defense of individual freedoms, including the property rights Mr. Bell is so contemptuous
of To be more explicit, black Americans must not fear to express their diversity as
individual citizens and as members of society. The tragedy of the civil rights movement is
that as blacks achieved the full exercise of their rights as citizens, government expanded,
and blacks became an interest group in a coalition supporting expanded government. In
my mind, uniting black Americans means giving them the security to be diverse."
22.
"Visionary's Blurred View of Equality"
Washington Times, October 19, 1987, p.E8
In this article, Clarence Thomas reviewed The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City,
the Underclass and Public Policy by University of Chicago sociology professor William Julius
Wilson. He labels Wilson's prescription-composed of income redistribution and other
socialist-oriented programs--"less a work of scholarship than a political tract with some
charts and references thrown in." Chairman Thomas took the opportunity to stress the
theme of self-help:
Mr. Wilson does not hesitate to scorn the modest but concrete victories of
self-help in favor of a government-controlled economy. Yet it is precisely
through self-help, with attention to both cultural and class traits of the
underclass, that the most reliable progress can be made. In his zeal to save
some families, Mr. Wilson would allow the family to have no effect at all,
which would lead to its destruction.
Those of us who have ascended from the ranks of 'the truly disadvantaged'
through the strength of those who raised us would have been crippled by the
program Mr. Wilson sets forth. When has socialism's concentration of power-
-for this is what he advocates--helped a 'truly disadvantaged' minority?"
18
23.
"Clarence Thomas"
Interview in Reason, November 1987, p.29
Reason magazine prefaced this interview by calling Clarence Thomas a "Washington
rarity: a genuinely independent thinker." Similar to some comments now in the press, it
said that "[t]he liberal and conservative establishments have never quite known what to
make of the man."
Clarence Thomas said his professional career is "a vindication of the way I was
raised." He also told a little of the struggle for civil rights: "My grandfather was very active:
he put his property up to bail the protesters out. And all of us were members of the
NAACP--the local NAACP."
On priorities for public policy: "To the extent that you should have any kind of
efforts, it should be for those individuals who are on the bottom. Help the people who
need help most, and don't just feed them this pablum of welfare and leave them in
neighborhoods that are riddled with crime, where nobody would start a business or would
go to try to live."
On the civil rights establishment: "I think it's out of touch with reality. It really bugs
me that someone will tell me, after I spent 20 years being educated, how I'm supposed to
think. That is offensive to me."
On whether he is a libertarian: "I certainly have some very strong libertarian
leanings, yes."
On Malcolm X: "I was also partial to the Black Muslims, primarily because of their
belief in self-help I've been very partial to Malcolm X, particularly his self-help
teachings There is too much sometimes of the antiwhite rhetoric. There is a lot of good
in what he says, and I go through it for the good."
On whether he is a black nationalist: "Nah I'm not a nationalist. I have been angry
enough in my life, and there are some points where I'm sure my attitudes approached black
nationalism."
On whether the civil rights establishment, the NAACP, is doing good work: "I can't
think of any. I'm the wrong person to ask, because of the malice with which they have
treated me You've got a situation recently where the president of the NAACP or one of
his spokespersons is defending a kid who punched out a teacher. Give me a
break! You've got to have some standards of morality, some strong positive statements
about expectations--and those organizations could do that. Instead, they spend their time
telling minority kids that it is hopeless out there They should be telling these kids that
freedom carries not only benefits, it carries responsibilities."
19
On how the Republican Party treats blacks: "The Republican Party and the
conservatives have shown very little interest in black Americans and have actually done
things to leave the impression among blacks that they are antagonistic to their interests.
Even as someone who's labeled a conservative--I'm a Republican, I'm black, I'm heading
up this organization in the Reagan administration--I can say that conservatives don't exactly
break their necks to tell blacks that they're welcome."
24.
"Civil Rights as a Principle Versus Civil Rights as an Interest"
Chapter 28 in Assessing the Reagan Years (Cato Institute, 1988)
In this piece based in Chairman Thomas' experience in the Reagan Administration,
he tells how he once thought "great strides could be made on behalf of individual liberty"
but how "several relatively modest but significant reforms" resulted. He wrote: "I am still
amazed that the Washington Post, of all sources, praised the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a recent editorial." He sought here to explain the
administration's "failures to enunciate a principled understanding of what we were about
and to articulate the meaning of individuals rights and how we might best defend them."
For him, "the core of the civil rights debate today" is over whether "the principle of
freedom and dignity" should be applied "to groups, rather than to individuals." Clarence
Thomas comes down in favor of the individual. He criticized "the failure of the Supreme
Court to deal adequately with race-related issues" in that even Brown V. Board of Education
did not rest on an "adequate principle" based on "simple justice" but rather was based on
"[p]sychological evidence, compassion, and a failure to connect segregation with the evil of
slavery." The Court's later decisions requiring integration and busing seemed "more
concerned with meeting the demands of groups than with protecting the rights of
individuals."
He drew a distinction between the function of Congress and the Supreme Court.
Congress has "the principal task of general lawmaking" and is "the only place where a
reasonable attempt can be made to reconcile public and private interests with a view
toward the common good. In fact, no other institution can bring about the kind of
consensus that occurs when majorities are created in support of particular measures." As
to the role of the Court, he said: "But the founders purposely insulated the courts from
popular pressures, on the assumption that they should not make policy decisions. The
judiciary was protected to ensure justice for individuals. This required insulating judges
from other groups or interests in society, even the interests of a majority. However, it was
unthinkable that courts would take the side of particular groups in the policymaking arena."
Relating this to the nomination process, he asked rhetorically: "By turning Supreme Court
nominations into power struggles, they transform the Court into another majoritarian
institution. How, then, can it protect the rights of politically unpopular minorities?"
"Despite the supposed neutrality of the courts, few people would suggest that judges'
training makes them better suited than elected officials to make political--as opposed to
judicial--decisions. The dignity of the judiciary is not enhanced by its politicization." He
20
criticized "rather creative interpretations" that ignore statutory language. He criticized the
Supreme Court's re-interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to create a scheme of racial
preferences and Congress' devising of laws justifying racial set-asides. This, he argued,
rendered irrelevant the constitutional principle of equal protection.
He asserted that "what is known as affirmative action" in the form of set-aside, racial
preferences, and quotas have simply not helped blacks. "No one in this country should be
made the fall guy for some other person's easy way of solving problems. And this
resentment is what hiring-by-the-numbers policies have produced." He contrasted this with
eliminating "artificial barriers to hiring someone you want That is the sort of affirmative
action I practice at my agency." He urged "reducing barriers to employment, instead of
trying to get 'good numbers."
Thus blurring the separation of powers, and equating the Supreme Court with
Congress as just another political branch, will "miss the point. Quick-fix solutions, such as
the appointment of another justice with the right views, are not enough to ensure protection
of our freedoms."
He discussed the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people")
in terms of the political compromise that brought it into the Constitution. He called the
notion that the Ninth Amendment was an independent source of power for the Court to
invalidate legislation "a blank check. The Court could designate something to be a right
and then strike down any law it thought violated that right." Perhaps anticipating the
debate sparked by the later case of "judicial taxation" in Missouri V. Jenkins, he speculated
that if the Court were to discover some "right" in the Ninth Amendment, it could possibly
require Congress to raise taxes to enforce the right. The "problem with using the Ninth
Amendment" in "a nutshell" is that politicians can blame it on the Court, the Court can
blame it on the Constitution, and individuals are left with no one to blame: "Far from being
a protection, the Ninth Amendment will likely become an additional weapon for the
enemies of freedom."
Thomas identified the Declaration of Independence as the first proclamation of the
"desire for self-government." "Equality means equality of individual rights, en equality
resting on the laws of nature and of nature's God. Among those rights are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness."
He concluded: "A civil rights policy based on principle, replacing the one based on
interest-group advantages, would be a blessing not only for black Americans but for all
Americans. That is what I have been working for as chairman of the EEOC. Partisans of
freedom should be alert to seizing the opportunities as well as warning of obstacles awaiting
them."
21
25.
"Rewards Belong to Those Who Labor"
Washington Times, January 18, 1988
Clarence Thomas opened this provocative essay commemorating the Martin Luther
King holiday this way: "The most important challenge facing black Americans is how best
to take advantage of the blessings of freedom Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. helped obtain for
us." In order to put freedom in proper perspective for himself, he wrote, "I need to recall
a different America, one that I knew until the beginning of my adult life. This was a world
of racially segregated schools, libraries, public buildings, restaurants and movie theaters."
Thomas wrote that his grandfather was able to "make a better life for his family" this way:
"[H]e had to be free to produce and to keep what he produced. By being self-sufficient,
he protected himself from some of the effects of bigotry. Intuitively, my grandparents
always knew they would make it. They knew we were inherently equal under God's law-
-the higher law--and that the way we were treated was a crime against God even if no laws
of man were violated."
Thomas identified "intellect, energy and dedication" as the sources of wealth. When
liberal intellectuals and their political operatives attack property rights and the wealthy, he
insisted, they attack those qualities. Invoking James Madison, Friedrich Hayek, Alexis de
Tocqueville, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, and Booker T. Washington, Thomas
decried the slide from viewing rights as "the freedom to do something" to "the legal claim
to demand and receive some benefit which someone else is obligated to provide." In the
end, he asked: "My grandfather made full use of such rights as were permitted him under
segregation. How could anyone today who does not labor under my grandfather's burdens,
do any less? Blacks today are in a better position to improve themselves than at any other
time in history."
26.
"King and Lincoln: Martyrs for America"
The New Federalist Papers, March 29, 1988
Marking the 20th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Clarence
Thomas sought to focus on the aims of King and Abraham Lincoln. Both of these leaders
were devoted to the "original political principles" of the Declaration of Independence: "For
each of the statesmen, the political problem was enforcement of inherent and inalienable
rights Both strove to vindicate America before a higher law." As a prescription for the
future, he wrote: "Isn't the bulk of racial problems rather a question of expanding
opportunities, reducing barriers, and providing education? These are policy or
administrative matters, which we are free to deal with in a variety of ways: through
government, charitable institutions, and, above all, the free market economy. We cannot
expect overnight results, but rather apply ourselves to steady policies inspired by the words
and deeds of Lincoln and King The old civil rights movement is over. The old civil rights
establishment is irrelevant."
22
29.
"Thomas Sowell and the Heritage of Lincoln:
Ethnicity and Individual Freedom"
8 Lincoln Review 7 (Winter 1988)
In this article, Clarence Thomas called for "a persuasive case for individual rights
and its complement, the right to be judged as an individual." Citing Abraham Lincoln's
response to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, and a later Lincoln speech on the
development of civilization, he sought to advance the thesis that ignoring the "principle of
equality" would "deny the uniqueness of the American mission, and make America not a
land of individual rights and freedom but rather another collection of tribes and nations,
such as all other nations have been." Only "a regime based on individual freedom which
transcend[s] race" can accomplish this." Thomas praised the works of black scholar Thomas
Sowell, works that were influential in Thomas' own thinking: "He is a Lincolnian in that he
perceives the problems of black and some other ethnic Americans not as an opportunity to
expand bureaucratic powers and thus to jeopardize everyone's freedom; he realizes, rather,
that freedom, whether in 1860 or 1988, cannot prefer some Americans, or it will eventually
be lost to all. It would be the greatest disaster possible for black Americans to claim their
freedom at the expense of the freedom of others."
30.
"Work As Educator: A Labor Day Reflection"
The New Federalist Papers, August 25, 1988
In this piece, Clarence Thomas developed his broad view of education. He insists
that education, in terms of book learning, can complete "what a decent upbringing has
begun--but it is no substitute for wisdom gained by experience. That is why work is so
important. Work is an educator and one of the greatest shapers of character. It teaches
us by example and practice about universal truths of human nature and the human good."
Thomas points to three principles work teaches: "the common sense of the free market,"
"the equal natural right to earn from one's labor," and "the dignity of labor." As he does
so often, Thomas used his grandfather as an example: "He vividly understood the moral
dimension of work."
31.
"The Higher Law Background of the Privileges or Immunities Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment"
12 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 63 (1989)
Chairman Thomas delivered an address at the seventh annual national symposium
of the Federal Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Its theme was unenumerated
constitutional rights. Other speakers included Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S.
Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, and Professors Lilian BeVier, Sanford Levinson, Jules
Gerard, and Norman Redlich. Addresses by the participants were published in the Harvard
Journal of Law & Public Policy.
24
27.
"What the Declaration Offers Conservatives"
Winston-Salem Journal, April 18, 1988, p.11
In this opinion piece, Clarence Thomas again stressed that "American politics and
the American Constitution are unintelligible without the Declaration of Independence, and
the Declaration is unintelligible without the notion of a higher law by which we fallible men
and women can take our bearings." Urging that "conservatives more than those of other
political persuasions, have far more to offer Americans of all colors," he cautioned that
"the Declaration's high standards" are necessary to give perspective to conservative policies.
An example: "Surely the free market is the best means for all Americans, in particular
those who have faced legal discrimination, to acquire wealth. Yet the marketplace
guaranteed neither justice nor truth. After all, slaves or drugs can be bought and sold. The
defense of equal opportunity to compete in a free market is a moral one that presupposed
the Declaration In striving to preserve and bring about what is good, politics must
measure itself by the standards of the higher law, of rights, or else it becomes part of the
problem instead of part of the solution."
28.
"A Second Emancipation Proclamation"
Policy Review, Summer 1988
In this review of Changing Course: Civil Rights at the Crossroads by Clint Bolick,
Clarence Thomas describes the book's aim as "steal[ing] civil rights as an issue from
political and racial collectivists, and [reorienting] is on libertarian and conservative terms."
Bolick asserts that economic liberties are the fundamental civil rights of all Americans.
Thomas praises Bolick's prescriptions because they "use the strengths of ingenuity,
persistence, and character that black people have always relied on for survival." Not
surprisingly, Thomas agrees that "[r]acial (and gender) preferences are simply
manifestations of widespread denigration of individual rights and recognition of only
groups." Thomas gives further insight into his own views in this revealing paragraph:
"At times Bolick's libertarianism goes too far. He decries statutes against
'victimless crimes' such as anti-drug laws He even endorses an activist
judiciary that would strike laws regulating the economy. (But he may well be
correct in seeking revitalization of the privileges or immunities clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment....) He reaches such conclusions because he sees the
American notion of rights as 'negative,' that is, independent of a notion of
what is truly good for men and women. In properly denying to government
the power to establish that good, Bolick appears to make such a good a
matter of individual taste or whim--an indifference tantamount to nihilism.
At this point Bolick appears to have lost sight of the higher law background
of the right he zealously seeks to defend. To be free from slavery is not the
same as exercising freedom."
23
This speech provides real insight into Clarence Thomas' judicial philosophy.
Aligning himself with "the higher law political philosophy of the Founding Fathers," he said
that "natural rights and higher law arguments are the best defense of liberty and of limited
government. Moreover, without recourse to higher law, we abandon our best defense of
judicial review--a judiciary active in defending the Constitution, by judicious in its restraint
and moderation. Rather than being a justification of the worst type of judicial activism,
higher law is the only alterative to the willfulness of both run-amok majorities and run-
amok judges."
The Constitution, he wrote, "is a logical extension of the principles of the
Declaration of Independence." Otherwise, "important parts of the Constitution are
inexplicable." To those who immediately equate this view with judicial activism, he
responded: "To believe that natural rights thinking allows for arbitrary decisionmaking
would be to misunderstand constitutional jurisprudence based on higher law. The higher
law background of the Constitution reminds us that our political arrangements are not mere
mechanical contrivances, but rather have a purpose." He insisted that reliance on such
political principles in Supreme Court opinions should be implicit rather than explicit. "The
higher-law background of the American Constitution, whether explicitly invoked or not,
provides the only firm basis for a just, wise, and constitutional decision."
He cited Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case
declaring constitutional the "separate but equal" doctrine, as "one of our best examples of
natural rights or higher law jurisprudence." He goes on to say that the Court's decision in
Brown V. Board of Education, which repudiated the "separate but equal" doctrine, could have
been even stronger by relying on such enduring political principles rather than on "dubious
social science."
In a footnote, Judge Thomas wrote: "Was it not telling when, following the defeat
of the Robert Bork nomination to the Supreme Court, Senator Joseph Biden was able to
proclaim, 'I have certain inalienable rights because I exist, [not] because my government
confers them on me."
In another footnote, he referenced another article (item 24 above) in which he
"elaborate[d] on my misgivings about activist judicial use of the Ninth Amendment." The
Supreme Court must share that view, since it has never ruled that the Ninth Amendment
is a source of unenumerated constitutional rights.
Judge Thomas concluded: "The conservatism I know has appeal because it reflects
a belief in the good sense and decency of the American people and, hence, in freedom as
the main source of all that is good politically. And what can be more conservative than the
revolutionary principle that America was founded on--that all men are created equal?"
25
32.
"Clarence Thomas: Protecting People's Rights"
Interview in Minorities & Women in Business, Sept./Oct. 1989, p.24
This interview was conducted in early 1989, before Clarence Thomas was nominated
to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
On the best thing he did for EEOC. "I set a direction for the agency. I have tried
to recognize the problems that we have, recognize the goals we have wanted to achieve,
and to stick to my guns and go on when others were saying that we should be doing things
differently. As a result, I was able to achieve some results that are very, very positive."
On the criticism of not enough class action suits. "That's ludicrous But no one-
you can check the literature to date-no one has come up with any numbers The criticisms
are usually very general. When someone said, 'EEOC doesn't do enough of this or that,'
no one-I haven't seen one reporter yet ask them, 'How many were done in the past?' and
'How many are they doing now?' We've done-as a percentage of our work load and in
numbers-more class actions than we can find that anybody has ever done."
On changes he made at EEOC. "We focused on investigating cases But our policy
was to investigate cases and if we couldn't resolve them, if we found there was
discrimination, we'd litigate. So that you knew that if EEOC can't resolve this, then they'll
take it to court for you."
On affirmative action. "I believe in affirmative action; my problem is with
'preferential treatment' because in there it assumes that I am not the equal of someone
else, and if I'm not the equal, then I'm inferior."
On his own character. "I am what they see. I don't change, and I don't vacillate.
I've got things to do, and I try to get them done It's important from my standpoint to do
things in a principled way. Just because you get pressure and someone threatens to take
something away from you or just because someone threatens to hurt you, I don't think you
can give up on principle I've been satisfied every day that I've gone home for the last
seven years that I've given it my all I am very satisfied that I have been honest in what
I have done. I have been serious; I have done it in the best interest of advancing the law
and protecting people's rights."
On his life experiences. "This job is important to me. I'm one of the last
generations of kids who grew up under segregation You learn some things under
segregation about freedom that you don't learn when you have freedoms. Those people
who have been denied freedoms, who haven't had it all their lives, feel more strongly about
freedom than those people who have had freedom all their lives. That's why I feel so
strongly about my convictions in this job."
26
Coalitions for America
Paul M. Weyrich
717 Second Street, N.E.
National Chairman
Capitol Hill
Eric Licht
President
Washington, D.C. 20002
Library Court
(202) 546-3003
Social Issues
Stanton
Defense & Foreign Policy
JUDICIAL NOMINATION BRIEFING MEMO
Kingston
Clarence Thomas and Affirmative Action
Budget & Economic Policy
July 24, 1991
721 Group
Judicial & Legal Policy
Siena Group
Catholic Coalition
The Omega Alliance
The latest chapter in the opposition's "Chinese water torture" approach
Young Activist Coalition
to the Thomas nomination is the suggestion that the nominee is
Resistance Support Alliance
Freedom Fighter Policy
hypocritical because, on the one hand, he has benefitted from affirmative
Jewish/Conservative Alliance
action and, on the other, he has criticized racially discriminatory public
policies. This suggestion is another red herring that ignores Clarence
Thomas' record.
Left-wing activists such as Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice have begun saying
that "Clarence Thomas spurns the very affirmative action policies that are responsible for
his rise" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 7/16/91). Similarly, Jesse Jacksson has said Judge
Thomas is criticizing the very policies that helped get him to where he he is today (USA
Today, 7/24/91). These false statements cynically play on the public's confusion between
affirmative action and quotas. Clarence Thomas has benefitted from the former, not the
latter. He has criticized the latter, not the former.
For example, the Martin Luther King scholarship Clarence Thomas received at Holy
Cross College was, as the Daily Journal acknowledges, "a grant earmarked for black students
that is based on financial need." According to Holy Cross' president, the college had an
aggressive program to recruit black students, but no numerical quotas. Likewise, Yale Law
School had "a semiformal affirmative action program" but, again, no quotas.
Judge Thomas' opponents ignore his record. On August 17, 1983, while Chairman
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he gave a speech in Chicago later
published as an article in the journal Integrated Education. Nearly a decade ago, he drew
the same distinction that he and an increasing number of black leaders and scholars
continue to draw. He stated: "In light of real world facts of life, there should be no
reasoned disagreement over the underlying premise of affirmative action: that is, that we
simply must do more than just stop discriminating if we are ever going to stop the effect
of a history of discrimination. But, we must have the courage to recognize that there is
room to question the effectiveness and legality of certain affirmative action programs and
policies." He told his audience: "Many of us have walked through doors opened by the civil
rights leaders; now you must see that others do the same. As individuals who have received
the benefit of an education which was probably denied your fathers, you must devise a plan
for a civil rights movement for the 1980s."
In an April 1983 article in the Labor Law Journal, Chairman Thomas stated: "Much
of the heated debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the
confusion between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct
terms. interchangeably."
Similarly, in a USA Today (9/5/85, p.8A) opinion piece, Chairman Thomas
distinguished between affirmative action and quotas. Failing to draw this distinction, he
wrote, "we will fail to address the real issues and condemn the most disadvantaged
individuals in our midst to an even bleaker future."
Again, in a chapter in a 1988 book titled Assessing the Reagan Years, he distinguished
between "affirmative action policies as they have developed" in the form of set-asides, racial
preferences, and eliminating "the artifical barriers to hiring someone you want." He spoke
of "reducing barriers to employment, instead of trying to get 'good numbers."
More recently, in a 1989 interview (Minorities & Women in Business, Sept./Oct. 1989,
p.26), Chairman Thomas was even clearer. He said: "I believe in affirmative action; my
problem is with 'preferential treatment' because in there it assumes that I am not the equal
of someone else, and if I'm not the equal, then I'm inferior. I know what it feels like. I'm
not a white male out there telling you that it ought to feel that way and it ought to do this
and that. I'm telling you how it actually felt to me."
When Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) announced on July 16, 1991 that he would
introduce Clarence Thomas to the Judiciary Committee at the September nomination
hearing, he noted that in their private meeting Judge Thomas continued to draw this same
distinction "between affirmative action, which he supports, and the affirmative action quota
type that he doesn't support.' Mr. Nunn. said Judge Thomas' 'overall approach is very
similar to the one I have, and that is the fact that someone in a racial group does not per
se deserve special consideration because he's a member of a race" (Washington Times,
7/17/91).
The opposition knows there is a distinction between affirmative action and racially
discriminatory public policies like quotas. The public supports the first, opposes the second.
Therefore, Judge Thomas' opponents try to blur the distinction, confuse the public, and
create a reason for criticism out of thin air. Once again, the facts prove his opponents
wrong.
The bottom line is that Clarence Thomas does not read from the liberal political
script. He had the appropriate response back in 1983 when he said in that Chicago speech:
"You must not be afraid of being disliked and must resist functioning in lockstep with others
simply because doing so is more convenient. We cannot accept the implications of the new
orthodoxy which exists in America today--an orthodoxy which says that we must be
intellectual clones. We fought too long and too hard to make people stop saying Blacks
looked alike--but I say it is a far greater evil that many say Blacks think alike."
Coalitions for America
Paul M. Weyrich
717 Second Street, N.E.
National Chairman
Capitol Hill
Eric Licht
Washington, D.C. 20002
President
(202) 546-3003
Library Court
Social Issues
Stanton
Defense & Foreign Policy
RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE
Kingston
ON THE NOMINATION OF CLARENCE THOMAS
Budget & Economic Policy
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
721 Group
Judicial & Legal Policy
July 30, 1991
Siena Group
Catholic Coalition
The Omega Alliance
Young Activist Coalition
Resistance Support Alliance
Freedom Fighter Policy
On July 29, 1991, the Alliance for Justice announced its opposition to
Jewish/Conservative Alliance
the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. This
fact was certainly not surprising in itself. The Alliance had attempted to
scuttle Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Court of Appeals. It sought,
for example, to undermine the nominee's American Bar Association rating
through a September 22, 1989 memorandum to the ABA's controversial
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.
The Alliance's new effort, by itself, was so predictable as to lack significance. Yet
the group's new report ignores so much, and distorts so much of what it addresses, that it
cannot stand unchallenged. The bottom line, behind all of the outrageous charges and after
the smoke has cleared, is the recurring fact that Judge Thomas is not likely to do the
Alliance's bidding. All of its talk of "a judicial philosophy that threatens to undermine
Constitutional protections" or "disrespect for the rule of law" and its amazing first-ever call
for "moderation" is a not-so-veiled call for judges who will implement its political agenda.
The Alliance report refers exclusively to Clarence Thomas' record during his tenure
as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982-90), his articles, and
his speeches. Just a single sentence in its six-page report acknowledges that the nominee
is, in fact, a sitting federal judge who has actually authored judicial opinions: "Judge
Thomas' brief tenure on the Court of Appeals has done nothing to alleviate our concerns."
Anyone who has actually read Judge Thomas' opinions readily appreciates why the Alliance
would choose to ignore them. Those opinions are, in the words of one legal analyst
"textbook examples of judicial restraint."¹ They are not manipulable, they cannot be read
several ways, and their relevance to his judicial views, as opposed to his personal views, is
undisputed. Yet they do remain the best evidence of how Clarence Thomas brings his
views about the courts or judicial in general, and his views about other subjects in
particular, to bear in the act of judging.
Actually, the Alliance itself has already explained why the group simply will not even
refer to Judge Thomas' judicial opinions in developing its charges against him. On July
29, 1991, the Alliance released four documents. One of them was titled "Alliance for
Justice Preliminary Report on Clarence Thomas," dated July 1, 1991. Curiously, it differed
1
Crovitz, "The Views of Justice Thomas, According to Judge Thomas," Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1991,
at A7.
substantially from another document, also titled "Alliance for Justice Preliminary Report
on Clarence Thomas," and also dated July 1, 1991. The most significant change was that
the second July 1 report did not include a positive evaluative statement about Judge
Thomas' judicial opinions that appeared in the first July 1 report. That statement read:
"His decisions overall do not indicate an overly
idealogical [sic] tilt, although they generally are
conservative, especially his criminal law and
procedure decisions."
The Alliance owes everyone an explanation. Which report is the real July 1 report?
The origin of the first July 1 report is even in doubt, since it summarizes a decision
rendered on July 5, 1991. Why did the Alliance delete its favorable conclusion when it
finally decided to publicly oppose the nomination? Do Judge Thomas' opinions suddenly
tilt because the Alliance does? This approach resembles turning the odometer back on a
used car and raises serious questions about the Alliance's credibility and other attempts at
analyzing the issues raised by the Thomas nomination.
But this sleight-of-hand does prove one thing - the Alliance has no use for Judge
Thomas' judicial opinions because those opinions do not provide grist for its propaganda
mill. Yet the Alliance claims to "prove," by reference to Judge Thomas' views and
statements off the bench, his expected views and statements on the bench! It is for this
purpose that Judge Thomas' existing judicial record must be examined.
I. EEOC Tenure - Settlement vs. Litigation
During the Alliance's July 29 press conference, its Executive Director called the
EEOC under Chairman Clarence Thomas "a nickel and dime settlement agency." The
facts about enforcement and litigation statistics under Chairman Thomas' leadership are so
plainly a matter of public record that this statement approaches a deliberate untruth. The
previous administration had aggressively pursued the "rapid charge" approach which sought
to settle, rather than investigate and litigate, charges of discrimination. Some 50% of
EEOC's charges were processed this way. A letter from the Office of Management and
Budget dated December 8, 1980, stated that this "rapid charge process allows the
settlement of the individual charges without modifications to employment policies."
Indeed, discriminating employers preferred this system because it did not affix blame, did
not identify victims, and did not cost much to remedy.
Chairman Thomas sought to shift the agency's enforcement philosophy from "rapid
charge" and settlement processing to full investigation and, if necessary, litigation. The
Commission adopted an enforcement policy in 1984 requiring that all discrimination
charges failing conciliation were to be forwarded to the Commission for possible litigation.
The Commission adopted a remedies policy the following year requiring that the maximum
of available relief would be sought in each case.
This new enforcement philosophy, emphasizing investigation, litigation, and
maximum remedies, changed the enforcement statistics. The percentage of resolutions
after full investigations more than doubled during his tenure. The number of lawsuits filed
on behalf of victims of discrimination rose to record levels. And the level of benefits
obtained more than doubled.
The record could not be clearer. If the Alliance for Justice somehow opposes the
approach of investigating the merits of discrimination charges, litigating those with merit,
and obtaining the maximum remedy for discrimination victims, let the group argue that
position up front. Claiming that the EEOC under Chairman Thomas was a "nickel and
dime settlement agency" is ludicrous name-calling lacking any connection with reality.
II. Who is Out of the Mainstream?
The Alliance next claims that "Judge Thomas also displays a strong adherence
toward 'natural law' theory, which he says stems from a belief in 'the laws of nature and of
nature's God.' (Speech to the Pacific Research Institute)." Why did the Alliance cite this
speech as the source for the quoted phrase? Why did the Alliance not cite the Declaration
of Independence? Or Martin Luther King? Clarence Thomas does. He also cites those
who framed and ratified the Constitution, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and
Justice John Marshall Harlan, who dissented in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision and argued
that the Constitution does not countenance the "separate but equal" doctrine.
If the Alliance truly wants to repudiate the entire American constitutional tradition,
reject the Declaration of Independence, and claim that James Madison, Abraham Lincoln,
and Martin Luther King are "out of the mainstream," then let them do so up front. But
this facile attempt at describing the whole of Judge Thomas' views on this matter in a
single paragraph just will not do the trick. Believing that the Constitution, in implementing
the sweeping principles of the Declaration, recognizes rights that human beings possess
outside of what their government confers upon them simply does not address what a judge
will do in the name of judicial review.
In its "the sky is falling" approach to analyzing this nominee's views, the Alliance
refuses to look at the whole record. Judge Thomas has clearly stated that his embrace of
the natural law tradition is a matter of political philosophy, not judicial review. But let us
let the nominee speak for himself:
"The best defense of limited government, of the separation of
powers, and of the judicial restraint that flows from the
commitment to limited government, is the higher law political
philosophy of the Founding Fathers Moreover, without
recourse to higher law, we abandon our best defense of judicial
review--a judiciary active in defending the Constitution, but
judicious in its restraint and moderation. Rather than being a
justification of the worst type of judicial activism, higher law is
the only alternative to the willfulness of both run-amok
majorities and run-amok judges."
"To believe that natural rights thinking allows for arbitrary
decisionmaking would be to misunderstand constitutional
jurisprudence based on higher law."²
The Alliance takes the simplistic view, at least for purposes of its report, that being
willing to "overturn Supreme Court precedent on Constitutional issues" automatically makes
one an "activist." Just when the Alliance came to decry judicial activism is perhaps the
subject of another analysis. And we will all wait in vain for the group to denounce the
Warren Court and its upsetting the precedential applecart. But the Supreme Court itself
provides the appropriate response to this rhetorical flourish. It has repeatedly held that the
doctrine of stare decisis is least persuasive in constitutional cases. Overruling a precedent
does not automatically warrant the "activist" label - it would seem that liberals would press
this point even more than conservatives.
III. Compassion = Don't Criticize ?
The Alliance claims Judge Thomas' sometimes harsh criticism of the civil rights
establishment shows an "animosity to views different from his own." Since when has
disagreement or independent thinking become "animosity"? Is fealty to the establishment's
party line now the litmus test for an acceptable Supreme Court nominee? It is instructive
to note that Arthur Fletcher, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and a dean
of the civil rights/affirmative action establishment if every there was one, endorsed Judge
Thomas' nomination on July 26, 1991. He stated:
"If anything should occur to diminish the effectiveness or
eliminate opportunities in either [education or employment], I
would have as much, if not more, to lose than anyone I am
convinced that in his heart of hearts, [Judge Thomas] knows
that he has benefited from the fallout of the Brown Decision,
and that he also has benefited from the dramatically improved
opportunities environment created by the employment
affirmative actions enforcement movement; that he has ridden
it all the way to the top I support the nomination."
Judge Thomas told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "The reason I became a lawyer
was to make sure that minorities, individuals who did not have access to this society, gained
access. Now, I may differ with others as to how best to do that, but the objective has
always been to include those who have been excluded." That is precisely the right set of
priorities.
2
Thomas, "The Higher Law Background of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment," 12 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 63,63-64,66 (1989).
IV. The "Rule of Law"
For some, the "rule of law" means nothing more than "our agenda." Thus it is with
the Alliance for Justice. As it did without success during Clarence Thomas' nomination to
the U.S. Court of Appeals, here the Alliance suddenly acts as if Clarence Thomas was a
one-man EEOC, "imposing his personal views" upon a group of submissive and compliant
commissioners, even "contrary to the traditions of the agency itself."
Of course, this does not explain why the EEOC's new building in Washington is now
named after its longest serving chairman, Clarence Thomas. It does not explain the large
plaque in the lobby, placed by the Commission and its employees to honor Clarence
Thomas for "his dedicated leadership exemplified by his personal integrity and unwavering
commitment to freedom, justice and equality of opportunity and the highest standards of
government service."
No matter what his personal views, Clarence Thomas could not have imposed
anything on a five-member commission even if he had wanted to. In fact, he always
followed proper administrative procedures for considering new policies. This demonstrates
a commitment to, rather than a disregard for, the rule of law. And his support for new
policies that strengthened the EEOC's ability to actually enforce the law demonstrates his
commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans.
The Alliance rips off charge after charge without documentation, facts, or even
extended discussion. Chairman Thomas allegedly believed that employers had the better
evidence in "several" age discrimination cases, despite "overwhelming" evidence of
discrimination. What was this evidence? How many age discrimination cases does the
EEOC process each year? Is siding with an employer necessarily a disregard for the rule
of law? This lays bare the Alliance's raw bias - a judge who lets plaintiffs win is restrained
by the rule of law, a judge who ever sides with an employer is an activist derelict in his
judicial duties.
The Alliance claims the EEOC "allowed possibly over 13,000 age discrimination
complaints to lapse." The group should come forward with the proof for this figure. They
fail to distinguish between discrimination charges, handled at the local level, and
discrimination cases, handled at the Commission level. They fail entirely to point out that
it was Chairman Thomas who first brought the problem of lapsing age discrimination cases
to the public's attention in December 1987. The Chicago Tribune (1/30/88) praised his
candid testimony before the House Select Committee on Aging: "No excuses, no
bellyaching about the other guy, no flabby claim that it's difficult--or impossible, as
bureaucrats and elected officials increasingly bleat in sticky situations--to assess blame.
Everybody makes mistakes. Too few people in public life own up to them, much less
pledge uncompromisingly that they will be corrected."
The Alliance does not mention that between 1981 and 1989, under Chairman
Thomas' leadership, the amount of monetary benefits recovered by the EEOC for persons
claiming age discrimination more than doubled, the number of charges under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act handled by the agency rose by more than 55%, and the
number of ADEA lawsuits filed rose by nearly 50%. During that same period, the EEOC
staff actually declined by 10% and, in all but one year, Congress refused to grant the
agency as much money as President Reagan had requested.
The Alliance notes that Clarence Thomas has resisted group-based approaches,
including "goals and timetables," to equal employment opportunity enforcement. When the
Supreme Court endorsed such approaches, Chairman Thomas enforced them. This is a
commitment to, not a repudiation of, the rule of law, even above his own personal views.
The Alliance repeatedly uses the label "affirmative action" to include both flexible
or individualized approaches and group-based racial preferences such as quotas. Yet Judge
Thomas has repeatedly distinguished between the two. Again, his own expressions get in
the way of the Alliance's rhetoric and have to take a back seat. In an August 1983 speech
in Chicago, he stated: "In light of real world facts of life, there should be no reasoned
disagreement over the underlying premise of affirmative action: that is, that we simply must
do more than just stop discriminating if we are ever going to stop the effect of a history of
discrimination. But, we must have the courage to recognize that there is room to question
the effectiveness and legality of certain affirmative action programs and policies."
In an April 1983 article in the Labor Law Journal, he stated: "Much of the heated
debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion
between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms
interchangeably." In a USA Today (9/5/85) opinion piece, Chairman Thomas again
distinguished between affirmative action and quotas. Failing to draw this distinction, he
wrote, "we will fail to address the real issues and condemn the most disadvantaged
individuals in our midst to an even bleaker future." More recently, in a 1989 interview
(Minorities & Women in Business, Sept./Oct. 1989), Chairman Thomas was even clearer.
He said: "I believe in affirmative action; my problem is with 'preferential treatment."
When Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) announced on July 16, 1991 that he would
introduce Judge Thomas to the Senate Judiciary Committee when it begins considering the
nomination on September 10, he noted, as reported in the Washington Times the next day,
that in their private meeting Judge Thomas continued to draw this same distinction
"between affirmative action, which he supports, and the affirmative action quota type that
he doesn't support.' Mr. Nunn said Judge Thomas' 'overall approach is very similar to the
one I have, and that is the fact that someone in a racial group does not per se deserve
special consideration because he's a member of a race."
The Alliance, rather than honestly confronting the nominee's record, prefers
cynically to promote the existing confusion in the public's lexicon between these two very
different concepts. But the fact remains that Judge Thomas supports affirmative action
designed to eliminate barriers to individual opportunity. He continues to oppose racial
preferences requiring nothing more than membership in a group for persons to receive
benefits.
V. Moderation?
The Alliance concludes with an amazing call for moderation. It calls for a Court
that reflects "the rich texture and complexity of American society itself." It defies the
imagination how any group of nine individuals can reflect the "texture" even of a society
much smaller and less diverse than America. That minor problem aside, the Alliance here
shifts tactics in its drive for a liberal activist Court. Since it cannot simply call for that, it
demands that the Court be an institution reflecting "the diversity of viewpoints
representative of American society."
The Founding Fathers created a governmental structure with three branches, two of
which would be political and reflect textured diversity, and the third which would be
insulated from politics. It would be guided by law, not passion or public opinion. It would
protect the rights even of minorities against majorities - that is, it would buck the political
tide when the law required it. That is, as long as one continues believing in the distinction
between law and politics.
The Alliance would trash that distinction. But it cannot have it both ways. The
Alliance cannot, on the one hand, condemn Judge Thomas for embracing a notion of
"higher law" while it goes down the amorphous textured path of diversified complexity. It
cannot insist upon a Court that protects the rights of minorities, while demanding that the
Court be a representative - and hence majoritarian - institution.
VI. Conclusion
The Alliance for Justice's latest tirade cannot stand the test of fact, the test of logic,
the test of argument. While little in this latest report is new, it is just as unfounded and
selective as the group's past attempts to undermine President Bush's effort to place a
respected, brilliant, and open-minded jurist in the service of America. It did not work in
1990 and it will not work this year.
The Washington Times
3 of 4 groups favor
Thomas for court
By Dawn Ceol
CHOOSING SIDES
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
How a variety of groups line up
The battle over Clarence Thomas' Supreme
regarding President Bush's nomination
Court nomination intensified yesterday as two
of Judge Clarence Thomas to the
influential liberal groups vowed to defeat it
Supreme Court.
and a bipartisan coalition of women pledged
him their support.
In favor
The Women's Legal Defense Fund and Peo-
American Conservative Union
ple for the American Way, which oppose the
American Family Association
Association of Retired Americans
nomination, and a newly formed group called
Coalitions for America
Women for Judge Thomas joined more than
Concerned Women for America
75 groups that have taken a stance.
Congress on Racial Equality
About three-fourths of those groups sup-
Conservative Caucus
port the nominee.
Eagle Forum
Also yesterday, a busload of residents from
Family Research Council
Judge Thomas' hometown of rural Pin Point,
Landmark Center for Civil Rights
Ga., arrived in Washington with plans to spend
Lincoln Legal Foundation
National Catholic Education Association
today on Capitol Hill urging senators to vote
for the nominee.
National Center for Neighborhood
Enterprise
During back-to-back press conferences at
National District Attorneys Association
the National Press Club, the Defense Fund
National Federation of Independent
and PAW issued hefty reports characterizing
Businesses
Judge Thomas as insensitive to women and
Religious Roundtable
minorities and outside the mainstream of ju-
Republican National Hispanic Assembly
dicial thinking.
Rutherford Institute
Traditional Values Coalition
"The prism through which Judge Thomas
U.S. Business and Industrial Council
views the legal claims of women, including
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
women of color, and disadvantaged people is
Washington Legal Foundation
clouded by an ideology that misinterprets,
Washington Policy Group
ignores and restricts legal principles of the
Women for Thomas
greatest importance," said Defense Fund
Young Americans for Freedom
President Judith L. Lichtman.
"Our review of Judge Thomas' record on
Against
constitutional protections against gender dis-
Alliance for Justice
crimination, reproductive freedom and the
American Association of University Women
right to privacy and equal emplyment oppor-
American Federation of State, County &
tunity exposed a disturbing pattern of dis-
Municipal Employees
Americans for Democratic Action
regard for each of these principles," Ms.
Congressional Black Caucus
Lichtman said.
Equal Rights Advocates
Across the hall, Women for Thomas held its
League of United Latin American Citizens
own media event to dispute that claim.
National Abortion Rights Action League
"The fact that Clarence Thomas has lived
National Council of Black Lawyers
his life as a minority certainly has sensitized
National Council of Jewish Women
him to many of the issues he and women both
National Council of Senior Citizens
face," said Labor Secretary Lynn Martin, a
National Federation of Business and
Professional Womens' Clubs
former Republican congresswoman and head
of the 176-member coalition.
National Organization for Women
National Womens Political Caucus
Women for Thomas includes professors,
People for the American Way
corporate officials, lawyers, black sororities
Service Employees International Union
and some government officials. The officials
United Church of Christ
include Lynne Cheney, chairman of the Na-
Women's Legal Defense Fund
tional Endowment for the Humanities; Gwen-
dolyn S. King, commissioner of the Social Se-
Undecided
curity Administration; and R. Gaull
AFL-CIO
American Civil Liberties Union
Silberman, vice-chairman of the Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
NAACP
PAW President Arthur J. Kropp said a key
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
reason for his group's opposition was Judge
Fund
Thomas' resistance to sweeping race-based
remedies while head of the EEOC during the
Remaining neutral
Reagan administration.
National Urban League
"When we examine Judge Thomas' record,
we discover a man with a singular disrespect
The Washington Times
for the rule of law, an apparent indifference to
mently denies.
fundamental civil liberties, contempt for Con-
"We know that Judge Thomas is a man of
gress and the judiciary, and a painfully
admirable independence," Ms. Gradison said.
cramped view of government's role in repair-
"Under immense pressure he has stood for
ing the damage of discrimination," Mr. Kropp
the principle that no man or woman should be
said.
the victim of discrimination because of group
Critics have accused Judge Thomas of lax-
membership, and that no group, whether ra-
ity in pursuing discrimination claims, a
cial, gender-based, religious or ideological,
charge that Heather Gradison, former chair-
should be allowed to dictate the individual
man of the Interstate Commerce Commission
conscience of the men and women who belong
and a member of Women for Thomas, vehe-
to it."
JUL 30 '91 13:36
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
053 P01
""03
Agudath
Tsrael
of America
ПРТАМА SNTU TTTLIN
FAX MESSAGE
Please deliver this message to the below referenced immediately
upon receipt.
JULY 30, 1991
DATE:
HONORABLE JOHN H. SUNUNU
DELIVER TO:
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
COMPANY:
RECEIVER'S FAX #:
(202) 456-2883
DAVID ZWIEBEL, ESQ.
FROM:
(212) 797-7385
SENDER'S TEL. #:
We are transmitting from a Toshiba 3750 (G3) telecopier. Please
call the sender immediately if the fax you receive is incomplete
or illegible.
Our Fax Number Is:
212-269-2843
2
Number of pages including this cover page:
Thank you.
THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE ENCLOSED STORY
84 William Street New York N.Y. 10038 (212) 797-9000
JUL 30 '91 13:37
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
053 P02
JULY 29, 1991
DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
CONCERN OVER COURT NOMINEE'S
"It will scare me when people begin to say,
FARRAKHAN SPEECH IS SUBSIDING
'Well, I can understand where the Skinheads are
By David Friedman
coming from,' when they begin to get some moral
sanction from our legal institutions," he added.
WASHINGTON, July 28 (JTA) -- Concern
Thomas also said that while there are still
appears to be Jessening among Jewish organiza-
individuals who are as racist as others were in
tions that Clarence Thomas, the black conserva-
the past, "the difference is now they don't have
tive nominated by President Bush to take over
the overall moral sanction of society."
Thurgood Marshall's seat on the U.S. Supreme
The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin
Court, is a supporter of the anti-Semitic views of
confirmation hearings for Thomas on Sept. 10. He
Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.
is expected to be questioned closely on his views
This concern was raised when it was re-
about Farrakhan, affirmative action, abortion, and
vealed earlier this month that Thomas, in a 1983
his record as chairman of the U.S. Equal Employ-
speech, had praised Farrakhan for his espousal of
ment Opportunity Commission from 1982 to 1989.
black economic self-help.
In his 1989 interview, Thomas said the
Henry Siegman, executive director of the
commission for the three prior years had filed 500
American Jewish Congress, said at the time that
cases annually, more than any previous commis-
if Thomas had expressed admiration for Farrakhan
sion. He said that during his tenure, the commis-
"he has disqualified himself from service on the
sion also collected a billion dollars in relief for
Supreme Court."
persons claiming discrimination.
But Siegman said Thursday that he has since
But he charged that the commission was
received numerous letters from Jews who have
"hampered by Congress which, every year, guts
worked with Thomas and speak very warmly about
the budget for EEOC" proposed by the president.
him and his opposition to Farrakhan.
"They just don't want the EEOC to be
They have said that he is sensitive to the
successful during a Republican administration,"
issue and is the last person to condone anti-
Thomas said.
Semitism or any other bigotry, Siegman said,
Thomas also said that he did not believe the
adding that while the AJCongress is still con-
civil rights movement will grow because the issues
cerned about Thomas' views on many issues, the
today are tougher and harder to dramatize than
testimonies to his lack of anti-Semitism are
desegregating a lunch counter.
"reassuring."
"The issues today are much harder," Thomas
Other Jewish organizations have reportedly
said.
been receiving similar assurances from Jews who
know Thomas.
IRAQ HOSTED INTERNATIONAL
Agudath Israel of America, the only national
COLLECTION OF JEW-HATERS
Jewish organization to have endorsed Thomas so
By Michel DI Paz
far, also said that it was reassured by Jews who
worked with Thomas that he does not share
PARIS, July 28 (JTA) -- Iraq played host to
Farrakhan's anti-Semitism.
a gaggle of French neo-Nazis and Holocaust
When his 1983 remarks on Farrakhan were
revisionists from several countries, according to a
revealed, Thomas immediately issued a statement
July 24 interview published in the daily Liberation
declaring that "I am, and always have been,
here.
unalterably and adamantly opposed to anti-Se-
Michel Faci, 35, who says he was secretary
mitism and bigotry of any kind, including by
general of an extreme right-wing anti-Semitic
Louis Farrakhan."
group at the time, boasts that he and about 20
Supporters of Thomas, argued that Far-
others were invited to iraq by a government-
rakhan's anti-Semitism was not as well-known in
sponsored organization called "Friendship, Peace
1983 as it became in 1984, when the Black Muslim
and Solidarity with Iraq."
leader received national attention during the Rev.
He described the "thrill" of being able to
Jesse Jackson's first campaign for the presidency.
walk around in a "genuine" SS uniform in the AI
But some Jewish leaders maintained that
Aras tourist city about five miles from Baghdad.
Farrakhan's diatribes against Israel, Jews and
According to Faci, the French neo-Nazis
Judaism were known for more than a decade.
were received by the Iraqi information minister,
Abdel Lateef Jassem, who was surprised that the
Compared Farrakhan To Skinheads
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is outlawed in
Thomas' supporters point to a 1989 interview
France.
in a national Catholic weekly in which the nomi-
The 19th-century anti-Semitic forgery that
nee compared Farrakhan to neo-Nazi groups like
originated in Czarist Russia is a best-seller in
the Skinheads.
Iraq, Faci claimed.
"You never want to have hate groups in
He said the Holocaust deniers on the plane
Extended Page
2.1
"You never want to have nate groups III
no
salu
the
your society, whether it is Farrakhan or the
to Iraq included an American, William Brown, who
Skinheads," Thomas told the Los Angles-based
was personally received by Saddam Hussein, and
Catholic Twin Circle.
Michel Sergent, a Frenchman whom the Iraqis
Thomas was responding to a question about
employed as a lecturer at Baghdad University.
the Skinheads, and it was he who injected the
"In the streets of Baghdad, we saw in a
comparison with Farrakhan.
newspaper stand the portrait of Uncle Adolf
The interview is being reprinted in the
(Hitler) with a swastika. The Iraqis are fiercely
newspaper's July 28 edition because of the new
anti-Zionist," Faci was quoted as saying. "They
interest in Thomas, said Lori Sayer, the news-
agree Hitler was right to fight against the Jews
paper's editor, who made a copy available to the
in World War II. To them, Israel is really the
incarnation of the devil."
Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
In his remarks on the Skinheads, Thomas
Faci said that after doing propaganda work
played down their importance. "You don't sec any
on Iraqi television, he and his companions left on
politicians embracing Skinheads and surviving," he
the last plane to Jordan in mid-January -- follow-
ing the first night of Allied bombing of Baghdad.
said.
NATIONAL HISPANIC
REPUBLICAN
ASSEMBLY
Republican
National
Hispanic
Assembly
Press Release
July 19, 1991
For immediate release
Contact: Alvaro Pereira
(202) 662-1355
The Republican National Hispanic Assembly, (RNHA), the official
Hispanic auxiliary of the RNC, commends President George Bush on
his decision to nominate Judge Clarence Thomas to the United States
Supreme Court.
"The RNHA is dismayed to see that a few Black and Hispanic
organizations are attempting to dictate that for minorities to be
appointed to positions of significant rank in government, they must
be liberal and not conservative. This is a clear act of
discrimination against Judge Thomas, based on political ideology",
stated RNHA National Chairman Jose Manuel Casanova.
This nomination is not dictated by Judge Thomas' race, it is not
dictated by his ideology, it is dictated by his first-hand
intellect, his varied legal experiences his outstanding character
and his commitment to the Constitution and individual rights. The
U.S. Senate has already confirmed Judge Thomas four separate times:
as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of
Education in 1981, Vice Chairman of the EEOC in 1982 and 1986, and
most recently as U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the District of
Columbia in 1990. He graduated from Holy Cross College with honors
in 1971 and Yale Law School in 1974. He surely has already passed
through the most sensitive investigation and review process of
government and of the Senate, on several occasions.
The President nominated him for his fidelity to the Constitution
and rule of law. These qualities, coupled with his education and
experience, will make him an exemplary Justice of the Supreme
Court.
#####
440 First Street, Northwest, #414 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-1355 FAX: (202) 662-1408
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 29, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Governor Sununu
Andy Card
Judy Smith
Ed Rogers
Ken Duberstein
Bobbie Kilberg
Fred McClure
David Demarest
Ron Kaufman
Steve Hart
Leigh Anne Metzger
Mike Luttig
Gary Andres
Bill Kristol
Lee Liberman
Jim Dyer
John Mackey
Deb Amend
Dorrance Smith
9AA
FROM:
EDE HOLIDAY
SUBJECT:
Clarence Thomas
Please see the attached copy of an op-ed by Secretary
Sullivan which appeared in the Atlanta Journal & Constitution
last Friday.
THE ATLANTA JOURNAL & CONSTITUTION, 7-26-91
Senate should OK 'exemplary' Thomas
By Louis W. Sullivan
liberty. committed to fundamental fairness and
Special to The Atlanta Constitution
thoughtfully suspicious of government.
Dr. Sullivan is secretary of Health and Human
These are neither extreme nor offensive views
Services.
on social policy. In fact, they comport rather well
with those of the president. And, it is a well-estab.
WASHINGTON - The appointment of a Su-
lished practice and long-recognized tradition in
preme Court justice Is one of the most important
our political system that a president is entitled to
appointments a president makes. Judgeships are
reflect in his appointments the views and philoso.
for life and the Supreme Court's role in resolving
phy that carried him to victory,
some of our most crucial issues of Taw and policy is
pivotal.
In Judge Thomas, the president has appropri-
ately sought to have his philosophy reflected on the
In nominating Judge Clarence Thomas, the
Supreme Court, just as he has with nominations for
president has assured that resolution of these cru-
other positions.
cial matters will remain in the province of highly
But the most unfair of all the things being said
competent. fair and distinguished jurists of Impec-
about this nominee are the whispere and Innuendo
cable character and integrity. It la a nomination
about his sense of Identity. No one who knows Clar-
that deserves broad and quick support in the
ence Thomas or even spenda 1 brief time in his
Senate.
presence questions who he is or who he thinks he is.
Judge Thomas's qualifications for this high of-
I know Judge Thomas. 1 have looked him in the
fice are now well-known and not in doubt, His in-
eye, into the core of who he is. Isee & man on whose
tegrity and character, aub-
soul the ravages of America's segregated past and
jected daily to intense scru-
the hersh burdens of poverty are Indelibly written.
timy, have remained
unblemished.
I see e man of character and courage who has
are Absent any reasonable
drawn from these challenges the strength to en-
-basis for questioning the
dure and the compassion to remember. He seeks 2
better future for the least of us and for all Ameri-
president's nomination on
the bases of competence
cans who still suffer from discrimination and blas.
and character (the most rel-
The members of the Liberty County branch of
evant grounds on which to
the National Association for the Advancement of
evaluate Supreme Court ap.
Colored People, his home NAACP chapter, agree
pointments), discussion
and have given Judge Thomas their qualified
about Judge Thomas now
Clarence Thomas
support.
centers on his judicial phi-
losophy and his views on social policy.
Judge Thomas's identification with his past and
his passion for improving the future has been life-
There are even some who would attempt to
long. His words, taken in context, speak clearly and
question the strength of his racial Identity. But,
have been long expressed:
even based on these attenuated considerations,
Judge Thomas should be confirmed for the Su-
On civil rights laws - "These new laws
preme Court with enthusiasm by an overwhelming
changed the entire way of life for many Americans.
majority of the Senate.
They continue to do so. And they are basic to many
Americans. They continue to do so. And they are
Regarding his judicial philosophy, perhaps the
basic to the very functioning of our system of gov-
trouble some have is that Judge Thomas is a flerce-
ernment."
ly independent thinker and, thus, defies easy label-
ling. While, for some, this may be a troublesome
= On the role of the government in protecting
characteristic. to me it is an important asset.
civil rights "The federal government must con-
tinue to pave the way In civil rights. The federal
Our media- and computer-oriented culture
government has always had both a profound moral
needs neat categories for easy sorting and com-
obligation and constitutional duty to protect indi-
partmentalizing. But what is gained In. uniformity
vidual rights;" and, "Many of us have walked
and prediotability is lost in creativity.
through doors opened by the civil rights leaders.
I believe that we, as a society. are enriched by
now you must see that others do the same."
diversity born of independent thought. Therefore,
what some would see as a matter of concern about
In nominating Judge. Thomas to the Supreme
Judge Thomas, I see as a compelling strength that
Court, the president has chosen a proven jurist, a
will enhance the court.
man of exemplary integrity, an independent think-
er, a champion of liberty and a compassionate de-
Judge Thomas's views on social policy have
been widely expressed, but less thoroughly read.
fender of the vulnerable.
When the full text of his writings and speeches
Judge Thomas comes to the confirmation hear-
(rather than selective quotes) are read, however,
ings as an exemplary story of personal success and
they reveal a man seneitive to the needs of the dis-
with the potential to be an outstanding justice for
of
individual
all the neonle.
07.
26.
91
12:42
PM
POI
PO2
I/I
13:11
16
29.
07.
Danfath statement
10f2
I have been authorized by Judge Clarence Thomas to
release the attached statement.
Judge Thomas has told me that the statement about Louis
Farrakhan was written by a speech writer at EEOC, and may not
have been delivered. Judge Thomas was adamant in telling me
that he absolutely repudiates anti-Semitism by Louis
Farrakhan or by anyone else. He told me that anti-Semitism
is totally contrary to everything he has believed in and
worked for.
I can say on the basis of 17 years of knowing Clarence
Thomas, that there has never been any hint of prejudice
expressed by him against any group in our society. As a
victim of prejudice, himself, he feels most strongly that it
is morally wrong and he has committed much of his
professional life to combating it.
Statement of Judge Clarence Thomas
July 12, 1991
"I cannot leave standing any suggestion that I am anti-Semitic.
I am and have always been unalterably and adamantly opposed to
anti-Semitism and bigotry of any kind, including by Louis Farrakhan.
I repudiate the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan or anyone else.
While I support the concept of economic self-help, I have never
supported or tolerated bigotry of any kind."
8/5/91 (rev.)
ASSOCIATION AND ORGANIZATION ENDORSEMENTS
FOR JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS
Accuracy in Academia
Agudath Israel of America
Alabama Family Advocates
American Conservative Union
American Family Association
Americans for a Balanced Budget
Americans for Tax Reform
Association of Christian Schools International
Catholic Golden Age
Central State University
Citizens for Educational Freedom
Coalitions for America
College Republican National Committee
Concerned Citizens of Florida
Concerned Women for America
Congress on Racial Equality
Conservative Caucus
Conservative Victory Committee
Council of 100
Cuban American National Foundation
Eagle Forum
Family Research Council
Freedom Alliance
Landmark Center for Civil Rights
Lincoln Legal Foundation
Michigan Family Forum
National Catholic Education Association
National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Coalition for Self-Reliance
National District Attorneys Association
National Family Foundation
National Family Institute
National Tax Limitation Committee
Pennsylvania Parents Commission
Polish American Congress
Prairie View A & M University
Religious Roundtable
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican National Hispanic Assembly
Rutherford Institute
Save America's Youth
Save Our Schools
Students for America
Teenage Republicans
Traditional Values Coalition
United Conservatives of America
United Families of America
United Seniors
U.S. Business and Industrial Council
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
U.S.-Mexico Foundation
Washington Legal Foundation
Washington Policy Group
Women for Judge Thomas
Young Americans for Freedom
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority
7/24/91
U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Judge Clarence Thomas
Association and Organization Endorsements
Black Republican Group Endorses Clarence Thomas Nomination
(7/2/91)
"The Council of 100, a national organization of Black Republicans announced
its support of President Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas for Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court. An early supporter of Thomas, the Council sent a letter to
President Bush prior to the public announcement requesting Bush to consider Thomas
for the nomination to the nation's highest court."
"Mr. Thomas is a legal scholar who having recently passed Senate confirmation
before his current appointment, is already well known to the Administration. Most
importantly, he has the moral turpitude, the breadth of experience, and regard for
conservative construction of constitutional issues needed for a Supreme Court Justice."
Students for America Statement of Support for Judge Clarence Thomas
(7/12/91)
"We state our support for the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to serve
as the 106th Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
"Judge Thomas has served the United States with distinction for over 17 years,
as a Federal Appellate Justice, Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Commission
and as U.S. District Attorney in Missouri.
"Judge Thomas embodies the values that many young Americans believe so
strongly in, and the traditional American values that our forefathers embedded into
the foundation of this great country. With Judge Thomas on the bench we can be
assured that the Court will not legislate its decisions, but will interpret the
Constitution as it is written."
The National Tax Limitation Committee Endorses Judge Clarence Thomas for the
Supreme
Court
(7/15/91)
"The NTLC normally does not endorse Judicial nominees. However, in the
wake of the Missouri VS. Jenkins decision last year, when, on a 5-4 vote, the Court
decreed that federal judges could order local governments to impose taxes, it has
become clear that taxpayers have a decided interest in the Judiciary.
"On that and other issues we believe the Court will be finer, fairer and more
sensitive to the rights of individuals, including taxpayers, if Clarence Thomas has the
opportunity to serve."
Page 2 Thomas Endorsements
Catholic Golden Age Endorses Thomas as Next Supreme Court Justice
(7/15/91)
"The Board of Directors of Catholic Golden Age, the national non-profit
organization of Catholics over 50, fully endorses Judge Clarence Thomas as the next U.S.
Supreme Court Justice.
"We have no doubt about Judge Thomas' commitment to civil rights or his ability
to serve on the highest court in the land."
The National District Attorney's Association Supports Thomas
(7/16/91)
"Be it resolved that the National District Attorneys Association urges the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the United States Senate to confirm without delay, President
Bush's nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court."
Agudath Israel to Support Bush Supreme Court Nomination
(7/17/19)
Agudath Israel of America, the nation's largest grassroots Orthodox Jewish
movement, today announced its intention to support President Bush's nomination of
Judge Clarence Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Judge Thomas has impressive credentials, both professionally and personally. He
has compiled a strong record of distinguished service -- as a judge in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and, prior to that, as the chairman of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. He has displayed great sensitivity to the cause
of religious liberty. He has articulated a vision of equal opportunity for all Americans
that will help move the U.S. toward a society in which people are judged on the basis
of their qualifications rather than their race, gender, religion or any other extraneous
characteristic. He has overcome personal adversity and discrimination in his own life
through his steadfast commitment to such basic principles as hard work and intellectual
integrity."
The Republican National Hispanic Assembly Endorses Thomas
(7/19/91)
The Republican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA), the official Hispanic
auxiliary of the RNC, commends President George Bush on his decision to nominate
Judge Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This nomination is not dictated by Judge Thomas' race, it is not dictated by his
ideology, it is dictated by his first-hand intellect, his varied legal experiences his
outstanding character and his commitment to the Constitution and individual rights."
Page 3 Thomas Endorsements
"The President nominated him for his fidelity to the Constitution and rule of law.
These qualities, coupled with his education and experience, will make him an exemplary
Justice of the Supreme Court."
The National Catholic Educational Association Endorses Thomas
(7/22/91)
"...It can not be denied that he [Clarence Thomas] embodies the best and brightest
of the American dream. Against all odds, he overcame a disadvantaged and challenging
youth to attain a distinguished education; to reach high public office and to gain the
respect and gratitude of the leaders of our country.
"We believe Mr. Thomas has the qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court
and are confident that his accomplishment in achieving this post will stand as an
incentive to all young people in America that -- despite all odds -- they have a chance
at a better life through learning and self-initiative."
The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Endorses Thomas
(7/22/91)
The board of directors of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC)
today unanimously voted in favor of supporting Judge Clarence Thomas' nomination to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The USHCC is a business advocate group concerned with economic rights. As
such, we strive to make the market place an even playing field for Hispanic businesses
and minority enterprise at large. We believe in economic empowerment of individuals,
justice and equal opportunities for all Americans. We value hard work, discipline, moral
courage, self-reliance and entrepreneurship. For all these reasons, we support Thomas's
nomination."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 24, 1991
MEMORANDUM TO:
Governor Sununu
Andy Card
Judy Smith
Ed Rogers
Ken Duberstein
David Demarest
Fred McClure
Steve Hart
Ron Kaufman
Mike Luttig
Leigh Anne Metzger
Bill Kristol
Gary Andres
Jim Dyer
Lee Liberman
Deb Amend
John Mackey
FROM:
Dorrance Smith
DS
Assistant to the President for Media Affairs
SUBJECT:
Clarence Thomas
Attached are additional talking points on Clarence Thomas. Please
distribute as you see appropriate.
07/24/91
BUSINESS ISSUES
SUPREME COURT NOMINATION OF JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS
Judge Clarence Thomas is a firm believer in the benefits of
our free enterprise system. As he has said, "individual
rights and the free enterprise system go hand in hand. This
system enables individuals to advance themselves through
their own efforts and permits private -- as opposed to
government -- decision-making to take place.
Judge Thomas served for several years as corporate counsel
for Monsanto Company, where he was involved in matters
relating to contracts, antitrust law, and product liability.
He would bring to the bench a fresh understanding of
business issues and business concerns.
As Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), Judge Thomas changed the
organization's relationship with American businesses
from adversarial to cooperative. He established a
voluntary assistance program to provide technical
guidance and educational support to help employers
comply with EEOC laws. His actions showed sensitivity
to the plight of businesses who want to comply with the
law, but need help navigating complex technical
employment regulations.
Judge Thomas reorganized the EEOC, which was described
by the General Accounting Office as being in "complete
chaos" before he assumed chairmanship. His management
of this agency, which employs 2,850 people and has an
annual budget of $202 million, was commended by the
Office of Management and Budget for improved management
quality.
On announcing the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's
endorsement of Judge Thomas' nomination, Jose Nino, USHCC
president, noted that "The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
is a business advocate group concerned with economic rights.
As such, we strive to make the marketplace an even playing
field for Hispanic businesses and minority enterprise at
large. We believe in economic empowerment of individuals,
justice and equal opportunities for all Americans. We value
hard work, discipline, moral courage, self-reliance and
entrepreneurship For all these reasons, we support
Thomas's nomination."
JUDGE THOMAS
BUSINESS ISSUES
PAGE TWO
Judge Thomas' opinions from the bench demonstrate a
grasp of business realities and an understanding of
commercial details. A lawyer who argued a case before
Judge Thomas, said that he asks "real-world" questions.
His opinion in that case protected a corporation's
right to free speech.
In business-related issues before the court, Judge
Thomas has approved government agency decisions
favoring deregulation and free market determinations.
Clarence Thomas is a man who understands the value of
hard work in American business. While in grade school,
he worked for his grandfather's company delivering ice
and fuel oil. His grandfather taught him the value of
hard work and discipline -- lessons he has applied
throughout his life.
The U.S. Senate has already confirmed Judge Thomas four
separate times: as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at
the Department of Education in 1981, twice as Chairman of
the EEOC in 1982 and 1986, and most recently as U.S. Court
of Appeals Judge for the District of Columbia in 1990. He
graduated from Holy Cross College with honors in 1971 and
Yale Law School in 1974.
Judge Clarence Thomas
91 JUL 11 PH 6: 27
Judge Clarence Thomas was born June 23, 1948, in Pinpoint, a
rural community near Savannah, Georgia. His father left the
family when Thomas was still a small child. For the first years
of his life, Thomas lived in a house with no indoor plumbing,
moving at one point to a cramped tenement in Savannah.
At the age of seven, Thomas went to live with his maternal
grandparents, Myers and Christine Anderson. His grandfather,
though barely literate, owned and managed an ice and fuel oil
delivery business, in which Thomas worked after school. Anderson
was also active in the local chapter of the NAACP. It was
largely from his grandparents that Thomas learned the importance
of hard work and discipline -- lessons that he has applied
throughout his life.
The Andersons sent Thomas to all-black schools in Savannah,
where he was taught by Franciscan nuns. The educational
standards were very high. Thomas has said of the nuns: "They
most assuredly taught us Christian values, but they taught us to
be self-sufficient individuals first. The nuns underscored his
grandparents' teaching about the importance of education.
In 1964, Thomas transferred to St. John Vianney Minor
Seminary near Savannah, where for most of the next three years he
was the only black student in his class. He excelled in his
studies and was quarterback of the football team.
At this point in his life, Thomas intended to become a
priest. However, after spending several months at Immaculate
Conception Seminary in Missouri, he changed his mind and
transferred to Holy Cross College in Massachusetts. He supported
his education through a combination of scholarships, loans, and
jobs. He worked in the Free Breakfast Program and tutored in the
local community. He graduated with honors in 1971.
Thomas then went to Yale Law School. While a law student,
he worked summers for New Haven Legal Assistance and for a small
law firm in Savannah. He graduated from law school in 1974.
Throughout his life, Thomas has seized opportunities that
the American system offers. As Judge Thomas said on being
nominated by President Bush, "Only in America could this have
been possible", for a child born in poverty and segregation to be
nominated to the Supreme Court. In the President's words, Thomas
defines "the endless possibilities of the American dream."
Georgia State Senator Roy Allen, a classmate, said that Thomas
"represents the dream that African-Americans want to achieve."
Thomas' legal career contributes to his long record of
accomplishment. Much of that career has been dedicated to
service of the nation. In 1974, John C. Danforth, then the
Attorney General of Missouri, hired Thomas as an Assistant
Attorney General. Thomas practiced principally in the areas of
criminal and tax law, arguing several cases before the Missouri
Supreme Court. In 1977, he joined the legal staff of the
Monsanto Company, where he was involved in matters relating to
contracts, antitrust law, and products liability. In 1979, he
became a legislative assistant to Senator Danforth.
Four times the United States Senate has confirmed Judge
Thomas' appointment to high-ranking government positions. In
1981, Thomas was appointed Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
in the United States Department of Education. One year later, he
was appointed Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; he was reappointed in 1986. The EEOC, an agency that
employs 3,100 persons and has an annual budget of $180 million,
enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. The EEOC also enforces laws against
discrimination based on age or disability. Thomas' tenure as
chairman was the longest in the history of the Commission, and
the Commission's new headquarters building is named after him.
On April 30, 1990, Thomas assumed his present position as a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, to which he was appointed by President Bush. During
his time on the bench, he has written opinions in criminal law,
antitrust law and trade regulation, constitutional law, and
administrative law.
Throughout his distinguished career, Thomas has championed
the principle that individuals should be judged on the basis of
abilities and character, not on skin color. He believes that
every American should have the same opportunity to stand up and
be judged on his or her own merits. He has lucidly explained his
views on a variety of issues, legal and otherwise, in his
judicial decisions and in articles and speeches. He has been
described in the press as smart, tough, a man who "speaks
powerfully about overcoming racism and poverty in the deep South"
and who "embodies the ideal of personal achievement rather than
reliance on government programs for a leg up." As Senator Hatch
has observed, Thomas "came up the hard way" and "understands the
sting of oppression." Senator Danforth made a similar point when
he observed that Thomas "is a person who knows discrimination.
He has a real commitment to fighting injustice."
2
In announcing his nomination of Judge Thomas to the Supreme
Court, President Bush described him as "a delightful and warm,
intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of
humor. The President observed that Judge Thomas is a "fiercely
independent thinker with an excellent legal mind, who believes
passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans."
Senator Bob Dole applauded the nomination, citing Thomas'
"impeccable credentials" and calling Thomas "a man whose very
life exemplifies the American dream." Senator Danforth has
described Thomas agi "outstanding in every respect" and observed
that Thomas is "a compassionate kind of conservative, not rigid
or ideological in his views
In a very real way, he'll be
the people's justice."
In 1987, Thomas married Virginia Lamp, an official at the
Department of Labor. His son from his first marriage, Jamal,
lives with the family in Alexandria, Virginia. Thomas
occasionally jogs, lifts weights, and enjoys country music.
3
07/12/91
10:16
002
Gary A.
Franks
HOUSE
U.S.
OF
Congressman
STATE
NEWSRELEASE
5th District, Connecticut
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: CHRIS HEALY 225-7865
FRANKS SUPPORTS THOMAS DESPITE CBC VOTE
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Gary A. Franks, R-CT, Thursday, dissented
with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in their
denunciation of Supreme Court candidate, Federal Appeals Court
Judge Clarence Thomas.
"I respectfully disagree with my colleagues on their opinion
of Judge Thomas," said Franks. "Judge Thomas is a qualified, fair
jurist who will be a tremendous addition to the highest court in
the land."
Franks said Judge Thomas readily appreciates protecting
individual liberties and rights and brings a wealth of public
sector experience to this position.
"He has an impressive resume and a deep conviction for
fairness,' said Franks. "I am confident Judge Thomas he will be a
great Associate Justice."
-30-
CONNECTICUT OFFICES
WASHINGTON OFFICE
135 Grand Street. Suite 210
30 Main Street
1609 Longworth Building
Waterbury, CT 06702-1911
Danbury, CT 06810-3003
Washington, D.O. 20515-0705
(203) 573-1418
(203) 790-1263
(202) 225-3822
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Memo
From Clayton Yeutter to Peggy Noonan
7/12/91
10/2, P-5
Re: Wall Street Journal Article on Clarence Thomas (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By
PP
(NLGB) on 10/28/05
Subseries:
Issues Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Clarence Thomas Nomination [2]
Date Closed:
1/5/2005
OA/ID Number:
29172-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[2]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Republican
National
Committee
Clayton Yeutter
Chairman
July 12, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PEGGY NOONAN
FROM:
CLAYTON YEUTTER G
Peggy, I just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed and appreciated your recent
Wall Street Journal article, "Clarence Thomas: To Be Young, Gifted and Black." It
was outstanding. Coming from someone of your talent, that was not surprising, but
was it ever welcome. A good offense is important to his candidacy at the moment, and
you certainly helped provide it.
Many thanks for a fine contribution to the cause.
bc:
J. Austin
M. Matalin
B. J. Cooper
R. Kaufman
F. McClure
J. Sununu
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center 310 First Street Southeast Washington, D.C. 20003 (202) 863-8700
FAX: (202) 863-8820
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Note
From Katie Winklejohn to John Sununu
n.d.
P/2,
Re: Ed Koch and Clarence Thomas (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Clarence Thomas Nomination [2]
Date Closed:
1/5/2005
OA/ID Number:
29172-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[2]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Friday, 7:00pm
BOBBIE KILBERG called.
She had just talked with Ed Koch
and her "blasted" her on the
Clarence Thomas nomination. Even
though he had a positive column
in today's paper, he spent the
entire day making it clear to the
media that it is not enough for him
to denounce Farrakhan's statements,
he must denounce Farrakhan (basically
the same message as the ADL).
He is now witholding his support
of the nomination.
FYI.
Katie
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 7-12-91 7:14PM
12024561647-
2024562397:# 2
INEW YORK POST
36
To GOVERNER SUNUNU
FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1991
Far 2397
pq.2
Throughout history, presidents have nominated can-
didates for the Supreme Court whome views reflect
their own - there's nothing remarkable about that.
KOCH
Sometimes presidents discover to their surprise that
their perceptions were incox-
rest. President Eisenhower un-
doubtedly felt he was nominat-
T'S a shame we will have to wait all
Wealthy
ing & moderate when he se-
summer for the Senate confirmation
lected Republican Earl War.
hearings on Judge Clarence Thomas,
liberais'
ren. Warren ended up being the
most liberal chief justice of the
President Bush's nominee to fill Thur-
most liberal Supreme Court of
good Marshall's Supreme Court seat.
moral slip
modern times. Even judges
As the New York Post said in an editorial last week.
are not predictable and that in-
"It will be fun to watch white, wealthy liberal senators
is showing
jects vigor into our judicial
like Biden. Metsenbaum and Kennedy demand that
system.
Thomas - a black who's experienced the pain of dis-
As to President Bush. when
crimination firsthand - 'ex-
he flatly stated that Judge
plain himself." It won't be
Thomas race had nothing to
easy for them. What can you
do with his cholee, I hope he
Judge
do about A men whose life is
had his fingers crossed. There is nothing wrong with
the epitome of the American
the president wanting to provide diversity on the court.
Thomas
dream?
Diversity La not the same as a quota. Most people do not
From what Howard Metson-
feel. there should be & black. female, Jewish or any
baum and others have been
other kind of "set-anide" seat. On the other hand, it in no
is posing
saying in the news media. it
longur rensonable for the Supreme Court to be com-
would seem that psychologi-
prised only of white Protestant males.
dilemma
cally they are finding it diffi-
When Judge Thomas was designated to the Circuit
cult to let Thomas off the
Court of Appeals, some senators said he would face
plantation. They just don't
tougher grilling If he were nominated to the Supreme
trust a black who doesn't want
Court. When Metsenbaum says he will investigate
to take whites on & guilt trip.
Judge Thomas' record on abortion, presumably basing
At the hearings, Thomas will
his vote solely on this one issue, be is perverting the
have to deal with Ted Kennedy, who is quite familiar
purpose of the Benate hearings. Is Metsenbaum saying
with the intricacies of the law - judges, juries and
only those who support "choles" may sit on the court?
seroners - and Metzenbaum, that pillar of civie recti-
If Ted Kennedy. Joe Biden and Howard Metsenbaum
tude, the only member of the Senate Judiciary Commit-
want to nominate Supreme Court justices, they should
tas who voted against Thomas last year when the
FUA for president. If the Democrate want Supreme
nominee was confirmed for his current spot on the
Court candidates to reflect the philosophy of the Demo-
Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals.
cratic Party, they've got to elect Democrate to the
Metsenbsum is the senator who came under fire for
presidency.
taking $250,000 for making two phone calls to complete
Are only the best judicial minds being appointed to
a real-astate deal while acting as & real-estate broker
the U.S. Supreme Court? No, but that has never been the
without a license. He later returned the money under
ariterion.
in the modern are, Oliver Wandell Holmes. Benjamin
pressure. Much of the debate that has the liberals guashing
Cardoso, Louis Brandets and William Brennan can be
thair teeth centers upon two crucial Insues: Themas' op*
described as brilliant legal scholars, but very few
position to quotas and his position on abortion. 1 agree
others. It is not a denigration of Earl Warren or Thur-
with him on the first and disagree with him on the and-
good Marshell to say they were able and effective, but
and But his views are mainstream. supported by mil-
not brilliant. They deserved to be on the Supreme Court
Hone of Americans and deserving of respect. Shall we
and should be praised for having made extraordinary
Impose the "politically correct views now sweeping
contributions to our country,
our universities upon the courts as well?
Now it's time to hear what Judge Thomas has to say.
COPY for Gov. Sumenu
JUSTIN DART, JR.
907 6TH STREET, S.W., APT. 516C
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024
202-488-7684 (H)
202-653-5044 (W)
Washington, DC
July 18, 1991
For Immediate Release
I support the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas as a Justice of
the United States Supreme Court.
I am not an attorney, and am not familiar with the details of his
record on every issue. However, in my capacity as Chairman of the
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, I
have known Judge Thomas as a person who supports disability rights.
I have heard him publicly endorse the civil rights of people with
disabilities well before the introduction in Congress of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. More importantly, I believe Judge
Thomas to be a person of strong conscience and integrity, who
believes in the fundamental rights of human beings.
Finally, I believe that our democracy is more effective when the
President of the United States is supported in his, choices from
among fully qualified candidates for judgeships.
Justin Dart
ACCESS TO A LIFE OF QUALITY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Talking Points / Hispanic Bar Assoc. Meeting
-- Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the nomination
of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
-- We would like your support.
-- Under Judge Thomas's leadership the EEOC established important
legal protection for Hispanics.
* Striking down English - only rules (Salvation Army)
* Establishing that Title VII protects undocumented workers
from illegal employment discrimination (Hacienda Hotels)
*
Securing millions of dollars for Hispanic workers in
numerous class action and individual cases
*
Following the passage of IRCA the EEOC took the lead in
making the government and the public aware of the potential
for national origin discrimination that IRCA's enforcement
presented.
-- We have set up a meeting for you at EEOC with Chairman Kemp
and Ricky Silberman, Vice Chairman, to discuss your concerns
about the National Council of La Raza's report regarding Civil
Rights enforcement and Hispanics
-- I'd like to hear your thoughts about Judge Thomas and
hopefully our counsel, Boyden Gray, Ricky Silberman, and I can
answer any questions that you may have.
Governor,
FYI: President Bush has nominated 94 U.S. District & Court
of Appeals Judges. (approximately 80 are to District Court)
5 are Hispanic:
2 to Court of Appeals
3 to District Court (1 pending confirmation)
District Court appointments are effectively controlled by
home state Senators.
JUL 24 '91 15:31
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
349 P02
T
H
E
JEWISH
PRESS
Week of July 26 to August 1. 1991
15 Av 5751
Agudath Israel Supports Bush's
Supreme Court Nominee
Agudath Israel of America, the nation's largest
grassroots Orthodox Jewish movement. announced its
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and.
intention to support President Bush's nomination of
prior to that. as the chairman of the Equal Employ-
Judge Clarence Thomas for the United States
ment Opportunity Commission. He has displayed
Supreme Court.
great sensitivity to the cause of religious liberty. He
has articulated a vision of equal opportunity for all
In its announcement, the 69-year-old national
Americans that will help move the United States
Jewish organization emphasized Judge Thomas' cre-
toward a society in which people are judged on the
dentials for the high court, including such factors as
basis of their qualifications rather than their race,
his strong support for religious liberty and his commit-
gender, religion or any other extraneous characteris-
ment to principles of equal opportunity for all Ameri-
tic. He has overcome personal adversity and discrimi-
cans.
nation in his own life through his steadfast commit-
ment to such basic principles as hard work and intel-
Responding to the controversy generated by the
lectual integrity.
recent report concerning the speech prepared for
Judge Thomas in 1983 in which a favorable reference
"Agudath Israel has carefully considered the cir-
was made to Louis Farrakhan and his views concern-
cumstances surrounding. the speech prepared for
ing "economic self-help," the Agudath Israel state-
delivery by Judge Thomas in 1988 in which a favorable
ment cites Judge Thomas' own public statements and
reference was made to Louis Farrakhan and his views
information it has received from reliable independent
concerning 'economic self-help.' Based on Judge Tho-
sources that Judge Thomas had not been aware of
mas' own public statements. and on the information we
Farrakhan's anti-Semitism in 1983, and that he would
have received from several extremely reliable inde-
not have made any positive references to Farrakhan
pendent sources, we currently believe that Judge Tho-
had he been aware of Farrakahn's anti-Jewish bigotry.
mas - like most Americans - was not aware of Far-
rakhan's anti-Semitism in 1983; that had he been so
The Agudath Israel announcement reflected the
aware, he would never have said anything positive
decision of its national Board reached at a meeting on
about Farrakhan: and that he is of the view that Far-
Tuesday, July 16 at Agudath Israel's national head-
rakhan's poisonous message of hatred and bigotry
quarters in New York City. The full text of the Agu-
infects all of Farrakhan's messages and renders Far-
dath Israel announcement follows:
rakhan totally beyond the pale of positive discourse. let
"Agudath Israel of America warmly greets Presi-
alone admiration. We are firmly persuaded that Judge
dent Bush's nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to
Thomas personally abhors anti-Semitism and is totally
serve as Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court. Based on a careful review of informa-
dedicated to eradicating it and all other forms of bigo-
tion currently available about Judge Thomas, we are
try in the United States.
convinced that he will prove to be an outstanding
member of the high court.
"We intend to communicate our support for Judge
"Judge Thomas has impressive credentials, both
Thomas' nomination when the Senate Judiciary Com-
professionally and personally. He has compiled a
mittee holds hearings on the nomination later this
strong record of distinguished service - as judge in
year."
JUL 24 '91 15:32
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
349 P03
THE JEWISH PRESS
BROOKLYN, 7/26/91 NY
Supporting Judge Thomas
By Senator JOHN DANFORTH (R-Missouri)
been used very recently by Republicans, and it has been
advocated by Republicans: Let us play the race card.
I regret to say that the Congressional Black Caucus
But it is no less playing the race card for members
held a meeting in which it voted to oppose formally the
of the Congressional Black Caucus to organize black
nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme
politicians around the country to oppose a black judge
Court. And it is my understanding that at that meeting it
who has been nominated for the Supreme Court on the
was further decided that the Congressional Black Cau-
basis that he does not have the right ideology. That is
cus would attempt to mount a sort of political campaign
racial politics. That is divisive. And that is at least
throughout the country against the Thomas nomination.
equally as dangerous as anything that is done with
The effort would be made, as I understand it, to com-
respect to the quota card.
municate with black political leaders throughout Amer-
The reason I have been trying to work on a civil
ica and urge them to weigh in against the Thomas
rights compromise is to get race out of partisan politics
nomination.
and to get it into partisan politics, no matter what the
I regret their decision for several reasons. One,
source, is something that threatens the very fabric of this
because it was really a rush to judgment. No effort was
country.
made to find out the facts. It was even decided not even
Mr. President, I hope that Americans white and
to try to review Judge Thomas' record before making the
black - all over America will say: We just do not want
decision.
this to happen; we do not want it to happen in the context
But there are a couple more reasons that cause me
of the civil rights legislation; we do not want to have it
even more concern. The first is that I am concerned that
happen in the context of the Thomas nomination. That is
we are seeing a rentin of what happened with the Bork
a thing of the past. That is a thing of the days of
proceedings. At that time there was an effort by oppo-
Theodore Bilbo and the Ku Klux Klan. That is not
nents of Judge Bork to in effect go over the head of the
America of 1991.
Senate, particularly during the summer recess at that
The American people are going to be appealed to,
time, and to whip up various interest groups by creating
apparently, as members of interest groups or racial
the impression that Judge Bork was something of an
groups, on the Thomas nomination. What Clarence
ogre, a villain, and by so creating that impression
Thomas stands for is that a person can be black, and he
frighten various groups to in turn weigh in with their
can think anything he wants and say anything he wants.
Senators, and appeals with their Senators particu-
What Clarence Thomas said today when he was
larly during the recess.
visiting one of the Senators was that he hoped that his
I do not think that confirmation proceedings should
nomination could further healing in this country along
be conducted in that way. I do not believe that confirma-
racial lines. We are going to have to ask ourselves
tion proceedings for the U.S. Supreme Court should be
whether we want healing, or whether we want more
political campaigns designed to build blocks of interest
division; whether we want Americans to say no to this
groups to oppose a Supreme Court nominee. For that
racial divisiveness, or whether we are going to fall for it
reason, I am very concerned about this development. I
yet again.
can see it coming all over again: The politicization of the
Whatever the decision, Mr. President, this Senator
confirmation process, as though it was a political cam-
is going to do his best to point out what is happening in
paign as though it was a campaign for President or the
this debate. Let us have it all in the open - not just 40
Senate.
phone calls; not just little letter-writing campaigns and an
Mr. President, there is another reason why I am
order to make people afraid of Clarence Thomas. Put it
particularly concerned, and this, to me, is the greatest
out in the open; call attention to it; put it in the spotlight of
reason why we should be aware of what I am afraid is
public attention, and let the American people respond.
going on. The worst threat to this country is nothing that
I think the American people will say about Clar-
happens abroad. The worst threat to this country, in the
ence Thomas: This is a decent person, and this is a
opinion of this Senator, is not the deficit and the budget,
qualified person, and this is the kind of person we want
or anything relating to the economy. The worst threat to
on the Supreme Court of the United States. And we are
this country is divisiveness on the basis of race. That is
not going to be frightened and divided. We are going to
the great threat to America.
support him, or we are going to oppose him on the basis
The great challenge to America is how to hold our
of his human qualities or on the basis of his judicial
country together as one people, regardless of race; how
policies, and not on the basis of some effort ripped up on
to draw us together and hold us together. So the great
the basis of race.
threat is the politics of race. And it is a very attractive
(This statement was read by the Senator and
political tool. It has been used by Republicans; it has
entered into the Congressional Record.)
JUL 17 '91 15:56
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
211 P01
COiL
Agudath
Tsrael
of America
' ITTIIN
FAX MESSAGE
Please deliver this message to the below referenced immediately
upon receipt.
JULY 17, 1991
DATE:
HONORABLE JOHN H. SUNUNU
DELIVER TO:
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
COMPANY:
RECEIVER'S FAX #:
(202) 456-2883
DAVID ZWIEBEL, ESQ.
FROM:
SENDER'S TEL. #:
(212) 797-7385
We are transmitting from a Toshiba 3750 (G3) telecopier. Please
call the sender immediately if the fax you receive is incomplete
or illegible.
Our Fax Number Is:
212-269-2843
3
Number of pages including this cover page:
Thank you.
84 William Street, New York, N.Y. 10038 (212) 797-9000
JUL 17 '91 15:57
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
211 P02
7"03"
NEWS FROM
Agudath Israel of America, founded in 1922, is a broadly based Orthodox
Jewish movement with chapters in major communities throughout the
United States and Canada. It sponsors a broad range of constructive
projects in the fields of religion, education, children's welfare and social
action affecting the lives of young and old in far-flung parts of the
Americas, Israel, Europe. and elsewhere.
Agudath
Israel
of America
SNTU TITLIN
July 17, 1991
FOR INNEDIATE RELEASE:
AGUDATH ISRAEL TO SUPPORT
BUSH SUPREME COURT NOMINATION
Agudath Israel of America, the nation's largest grassroots Orthodox Jewish
movement, today announced its intention to support President Bush's nomination of
Judge Clarence Thomas for the United States Supreme Court.
In its announcement, the 69-year old national Jewish organization emphasized
Judge Thomas' credentials for the high court, including such factors as his strong
support for religious liberty and his commitment to principles of equal opportunity
for all Americans.
Responding to the controversy generated by the recent report concerning the
speech prepared for Judge Thomas in 1983 in which a favorable reference was made to
Louis Farrakhan and his views concerning "economic self-help," the Agudath Israel
statement cites Judge Thomas' own public statements and information it has received
from reliable independent sources that Judge Thomas had not been aware of Farra-
khan's anti-semitism in 1983, and that he would not have made any positive referenc-
es to Farrakhan had he been aware of Farrakhan's anti-Jewish bigotry.
The Agudath Israel announcement reflected the decision of its national Board
reached at a meeting last night (Tuesday, July 16) at Agudath Israel's national
headquarters in New York City. The full text of the Agudath Israel statement
follows:
"Agudath Israel of America warmly greets President Bush's nomination of Judge
Clarence Thomas to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
84 William Street. New York, N.Y. 10038 (212) 797-9000
JUL 17 '91 15:57
AGUDATH ISRAEL - NY
211 P03
AGUDATH ISRAEL TO SUPPORT
July 17, 1991
Page Two
Based on a careful review of information currently available about Judge Thomas, we
are convinced that he will prove to be an outstanding member of the high court.
"Judge Thomas has impressive credentials, both professionally and personally.
He has compiled a strong record of distinguished service -- as a judge in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and, prior to that, as the chairman of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He has displayed great sensitivity to the
cause of religious liberty. He has articulated a vision of equal opportunity for
all Americans that will help move the United States toward a society in which people
are judged on the basis of their qualifications rather than their race, gender,
religion or any other extraneous characteristic. He has overcome personal adversity
and discrimination in his own life through his steadfast commitment to such basic
principles as hard work and intellectual integrity.
"Agudath Israel has carefully considered the circumstances surrounding the
speech prepared for delivery by Judge Thomas in 1983 in which a favorable reference
was made to Louis Farrakhan and his views concerning "economic self-help." Based on
Judge Thomas' own public statements, and on the information we have received from
several extremely reliable independent sources, we currently believe that Judge
Thomas -- like most Americans -- was not aware of Farrakhan's anti-semitism in 1983;
that had he been so aware, he would never have said anything positive about
Farrakhan; and that he is of the view that Farrakhan's poisonous message of hatred
and bigotry infects all of Farrakhan's messages and renders Farrakhan totally beyond
the pale of positive discourse, let alone admiration. We are firmly persuaded that
Judge Thomas personally abhors anti-semitism and is totally dedicated to eradicating
it and all other forms of bigotry in the United States.
"We intend to communicate our support for Judge Thomas' nomination when the
Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on the nomination later this year."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 16, 1991
MEMORANDUM TO: Governor Sununu
Andy Card
Judi Smith
Ed Rogers
Ede Holiday
Bobbie Kilberg
Ken Duberstein
David Demarest
Fred McClure
Steve Hart
Ron Kaufman
Mike Luttig
Leigh Anne Metzger
Bill Kristol
Gary Andres
Jim Dyer
Lee Liberman
Deb Amend
John Mackey
FROM:
Dorrance Smith
D8
Assistant to the President for Media Affairs
RE:
Clarence Thomas
Attached are additional talking points on Judge Thomas as Chairman
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Please distribute
as you deem appropriate.
In addition, attached are two op-eds concerning Judge Thomas.
JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS
CHAIRMAN OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
"The EEOC is Thriving"
"Under the quiet but persistent leadership of Chairman
Clarence Thomas, the number of cases processed has gone from
50,935 in fiscal 1982 to 66,305 last year."
-- Washington Post Editorial
August 1, 1987
In 1982 Clarence Thomas was appointed Chairman of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) i he was reappointed
in 1986 and led the agency until he was named to the federal
bench in 1990.
The EEOC, an agency that employs 2,850 people and has an
annual budget of $202 million, enforces Title VII of the
Civil Rights act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the
Equal Pay Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Judge Thomas compiled an outstanding record at the EEOC. He
revitalized the agency, emphasizing its law enforcement
mission. Thomas sought tougher penalties against
discriminatory businesses and instituted policies that
protect the rights of American workers and expand
opportunities for women, older Americans and minorities.
Under Thomas, the EEOC vigorously enforced laws against
religious discrimination. Thomas' efforts were recognized
with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America's
annual Humanitarian Award for his "commitment to the rights
of all Americans to live free from discrimination based on
race, religion, or national origin."
The EEOC achieved a remarkable record under the leadership
of Judge Clarence Thomas. Under Thomas, the Commission:
secured over a billion dollars in relief for victims of
discrimination;
filed more than 3,000 legal actions in U.S. District
Courts during his tenure. In 1983, the Commission
filed 195 lawsuits, by 1990 that annual figure had more
than tripled to 640;
instituted policies to ensure that every charge filed
is fully investigated and litigated with full relief
sought for victims of discrimination;
Page Two - EEOC
restructured the systemic/pattern and practice program.
In 1981 the Commission had only a handful of broad
pattern and practice cases in litigation; in 1988, 103
cases were investigated and 16 were in active
litigation. of the $131 million in relief obtained in
FY 1988, over $48 million was awarded in large class
action/pattern practice cases;
established outreach programs for previously
underserved areas and for small and medium-sized
employers;
professionalized the agency and established a
management infrastructure by taking a finance system
the General Accounting Office had reported was in
shambles and implemented a sound financial management
system that in 1984, met GAO's standards for the first
time;
transformed a work environment the Office of Personnel
Management described as "beset by acrimony, improper
employee conduct, poor performance and favoritism" and
a case processing system that GAO concluded was in a
state of "complete chaos" to an agency which the Office
of Management and Budget commended for improved
management quality.
Under Clarence Thomas' leadership the EEOC vigorously
enforced the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Under Thomas the EEOC championed the rights of older workers
by:
fully investigating and prosecuting charges of age
discrimination;
securing a total of $389.7 million in benefits under
the ADEA from 1982 - 1990;
filing 781 ADEA lawsuits from 1982 - 1990;
filing pattern and practice/class action lawsuits that
represented annually between one-third and three-
fourths total ADEA lawsuits; and
approving policies to mandate pension accrual for
employees working past normal retirement age; and
establishing standards to protect older workers who
wished to waive their ADEA rights in return for
enhanced (often collectively bargained) separation
benefits. That rule was suspended by the Congress, but
ultimately codified in the Older Workers Protection
Act.
The Dallas Morning News
Sunday, July 14, 1991
My friendship with Thomas tells me he is a good choice
While thumbing
almost 20 years.
robe and gavel, and oversimplified spec-
know strongly supports civil rights. In
more sound deciaion than to nominate
through newspa-
Clarence and I ware introduced in the
stations of what be might do once in of-
an appearance at Holy Cross College. 1
Clarence Thomas for the next Supreme
pers and listening
early 70s by John c Denforth, then the
fice.
was proud to hear him say:
Court justice. Mr. Thomas is a man who
to television since
Missouri attorney general and now the
Some are saying Mr. Thomas has at
"My grandparents, who raised me, are
believes that justice must be colorblind.
President Bush
state's senior U.S. senstor. Since that
lowed himself to be used as an instru-
perfect examples of what discrimination
just M the late Dr. Martin Luther King
nominated Clar-
time, he and I have tecome good friends.
ment to push African-Americans back
can do. No matter what efforts they
believed when ha, during the march on
ence Thomas to the
Most of our earlier moments together
from the fight for racial justice; 1 say,
made, race was a roadblock to taking full
Washington in 1964, stated that one day.
ALPHONSO
U.S. Supreme Court,
were spent in St. Louis with our good
never. The Clarence Thomas I know re-
advantage of the benefits of this country.
he hoped that his children would be
JACKSON
1 have been quite
friend Larry Thompson, now 8 partner at
members the pain of discrimination.
As a result of living through this experi-
judged by the content of their character,
offended by the un-
King & Spalding in Atlanta.
From our many private and public
ence and other experiences, I have
not the color of their skin.
warranted labeling.
Later, our political careers took us to
discussions, I recall him saying. 1 can
strong views about civil rights. Many of
The Clarence Thomas I know is capa-
atrageous charges and Indicrous judg-
Washington, where Clarence became
never forget the agony of discrimination
us have walked through doors opened by
ble, competent and compassionate. His
conts made against the appeals court
chairman of the federal Equal Employ-
- the humiliation of prejudico. Through
the civil rights leaders; now you must
credentials speak for themselves and are
edge.
ment Opportunity Commission and I
summer work at the New Haven Legal
see that others do the same."
above repreach. I firmly believe be will
The Clarence Thomas 1 know is a self-
headed the district's Department of Pub-
Assistance Clinic, under a grant from the
While some in the civil rights move-
be capable of recognizing racism when it
made man who has worked enormously
lic and Assisted Houring. There we spent
Law Students' Civil Rights Research
ment contend that they are not con-
comes before him on the Supreme Court,
sand 10 get where be is today. He will
countless hours debating politics and
Council, I did not forget. Through Holy
vinced that Mr. Thomas is the right
competent to fairly judge critical Issues
serve the Supreme Court well. Not
disagreeing on issu 18; but, through the
Cross and Yale, I did not forget. As assis-
choice, I say he is. I think the main issues
and compassionate to rule on each case
through "Uncle Towing." buying his way
years, we remained loyal friends and
tant attorney general and assistant secre-
should be his ability to Interpret the law
according to facts, not politics.
the top or being a "loken," as some
philosophically in tune.
tary. 1 did not forget. As chairman of the
fairly. follow it through and judge with
Isn't that what we really want from a
save suggested; but through his own
That is why I am convinced the allega-
EEOC. I cannot and will not forget."
compassion. There is no doubt in my
Supreme Court justice?
strength of character, perseverance and
tions being made against Clarence The
Others are saying Mr. Thomes opposes
mind that Clarence Thomas will be a fair
strong belief in the American dream. I
mes are merely quick and simplistic
affirmative action and does not support
and equitable Supreme Court justice.
Alphenso Jackson is executive director
should know - I have known him for
judgments of the real man behind the
civil rights. I say the Clarence Thomas I
President Bush could net have made a
of the Dallas Housing Authority.
THE WASHINGTON POST
July 16, 1991
Allen Moore
The Clarence Thomas I Know
1 have been reading and hearing a lot about
his selection for other jobs along the way. He has
when he left the seminary almost 25 years ago,
as chairman, and just as it did when he was
battles with the White House and Justice Depart-
arence Thomas these days. Some of it makes
never denied his indebtedness to, or admiration
in recent years, he has attended a Methodist
nominated and confirmed to his seat on the D.C.
ment conservatives during the Reagan years
. wonder: Can this be the same Clarence
for, those, such as Justice Thurgood Marahall,
church, a Christian church and, most recently, M
Circuit Court of Appeals. The record will speak
were hardly politic. in addition, several times
homes who worked for me in Jack Dendorth's
who helped open such doors. He does not blindly
Episcopal church.
for itself, but someone should also look inside the
through the years, I strongly advised him to
fice 12 years ago and has been my friend ever
oppose the notion of taking race into consider-
I don't know how he feels about abortion, but I
agency to find out how people feel about Thomas
appreach his detractors both OR and off the Hill
acc?
ation for hiring, promotion or admissions deci-
would be very surprised if he didn't have an open
the man and the leader.
"They attacked me without knowing the facts,"
The man I read about has been called an
sions. What he does oppose are rigid numerical
mind on Res a Wade Many liberals and conser-
Evan Kemp, his successor as chairman, mar-
he would any, "and it would be hypocritical to
ech-conservetive" who has "forgotten where be
goals and quotas, which be considers divisive and
vatives on both sides of the abortion issue
vels at what Thomas did with a historically
approach them." This is a man who advanced in a
one from," who believes "affirmative action is
unfair.
acknowledge the vulnerability of that decision on
underfunded agency that sew its budget cut nine
political environment is upite of, not because of,
- heroin," whose seven years as chairman of
When he gets a chance to fully explain his
purely legal grounds. but I personally wouldn't
out of 10 times in the 1980s. (Usually Congress
his political skills.
. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
views in Senate hearings, he will challenge his
bet the ranch on how he would come down on the
cut the president's request, them bests up the
Perhaps the most abound charge leveled at
are "the most retrograde in its history," whose
listeners to think beyond platitudes and con-
issue.
agency for ks budget-related shortcomings.)
Thomas is that The forget where he came from."
at marriage ended in a "messy divorce that
ventional orthodoxy. Clarence Thomas has al-
I know something about Thomas's first mar-
Clarence Thomas inherited a poorly managed,
Thomas's professional and personal life, not to
iserves scrutiny," whose "opposition to abortion
ways supported the idea of giving preferential
riage because I apent many hours talking with
dispirited agency whose employees were embar-
mention his conscience, wouldn't permit him to
well-known," whose "allegiance to the pope"
treatment to the truly disadvantaged, especially
him as it broke apart. He was tormented both
rassed to admit where they worked. His legacy,
forget his roots if he wanted to. Neither would
sould be examined, whose actions are "guided
minorities, rather than to those from middle- or
political calculation," and who is "harably
upper middle-class backgrounds who happen to
about breaking his wedding vows and about the
according to Kemp, is that employees are now
the world around him. After lunch a few weeks
be members of a targeted minority group. To do
impact of the divorce on his young son. He
proud to work at the EEOC and even named the
ago, he and I were strolling around downtown
demental and self-righteous rather than com-
essionate and empathetic."
otherwise risks stigmatizing those favored—to
sought me out for advice because I was a
new headquarters building after him. Nonethe-
Washington. He suddenly realized be was into for
The Clarance Thomas I know is a caring
make it appear as if they are incapable of
divorced father with two well-adjusted children.
less, says Kemp, "Clarence won't get the credit
an appointment and asked as (Tm white) to bail
competing fairly. It also can put the unprepared
His divorce was handled amicably. with Clarence
that is his due; I will." People throughout the
him a cab.
honest, bright, good-humored, modest
thoughtful father, husband and public servant
in situations where they are deatined to fall "God
given undisputed primary custody of his son.
agency sing Thomas's prolecs-his dedication,
1 have trouble getting a cab downtown, and
to has already come farther in 43 years than
helps those who help themselves," Clarence
Both parents have played a major role in his
his professional standards, his extraordinary -
It's virtually impossible in Georgetown," be anid,
- of us will in a Metime.
might any, encouraging self-help and self-reliance.
upbringing, and all parties have great respect for
sitivity to and support of the "Sittle people," and
jumping into the taxi I had flagged down as the
The president did his nominee no favor when
Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Jesse
each other.
his inspiration to employees at all levels.
driver mouthed an obsonsity in my direction.
said race was not a factor in the nomination.
Jackson have stressed such themes.
Clarence's record as EEOC chairman deserves
The suggestion that his actions have been
course it was, and Thomas readily admits it,
Regarding his feelings about the pope, I be-
close ecrutiny, just as it did when he was
politically motivated is laughable. This is not a
The writer was principal policy adviser to
as he acknowledgese that race played a role in
lieve Clarence stopped being a practicing Catholic
renominated and reconfirmed for a second term
political animal. His passionate, behind-the-ecenes
Sen. John C Danforth (R-Ma) for 11 years.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 19, 1991
MEMORANDUM TO: Governor Sununu
Andy Card
Judi Smith
Ed Rogers
Ede Holiday
Bobbie Kilberg
Ken Duberstein
David Demarest
Fred McClure
Steve Hart
Ron Kaufman
Mike Luttig
Leigh Anne Metzger
Bill Kristol
Gary Andres
Jim Dyer
Lee Liberman
Deb Amend
FROM:
Dorrance John Mackey Smith the
Assistant to the President for Media Affairs
SUBJECT:
Clarence Thomas
Attached is additional material in support of Judge Thomas. Please
distribute as you see appropriate.
COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS
"'We have a sense he is somebody we can be very comfortable
with, said William Rapfogel, director of the Institute for Public
Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
"Rapfogel said that Thomas displayed an 'incredible
sensitivity to the Jewish people' while at the EEOC [Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission]. In 1986, the organization
presented him with its Humanitarian Award."
"Thomas has 'a very strong streak of independence, which has
been honed by being very much an outsider within the black
leadership group,' said Murray Friedman of Philadelphia, Middle
Atlantic states director of the AJCommittee.
"Friedman, who served as vice chairman of the U.S. Civil
Rights Commission from 1986 to 1989, said he has enormous respect
for Thomas.
"II have never seen a more towering intelligence,' he said.
"Friedman said that while Marshall ably represented the black
community in its fight for civil rights, the struggle today is for
'empowerment,' which calls for different kinds of strategies. He
believes Thomas will be more suited for today's agenda."
Article by David Friedman,
Jewish Exponent, July 5, 1991
"At a Holy Cross alumni gathering on June 8, the college's
basketball coach, George Blaney, was chatting with a prominent
alumnus, Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Angelo Santaniello, when
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas walked into the room. "
"We've known each other since he entered Yale Law School in
1971, Santaniello said. 'At the time, Father John Brooks, the
president of Holy Cross, asked me to look Clarence up and say
hello. I did, and we've been friends ever since. At his
[Thomas's] request, I swore him in as chairman of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982.' '
'How would I describe him? He's a very warm person. Humble,
personable, intense, straightforward with no airs. Clarence Thomas
is a real fair guy. He shouldn't be stereotyped, because he won't
walk a stereotyped line. Clarence calls it as he sees it, not as
someone wants him to see it.
"Coach Blaney of Holy Cross commented the other day, 'Clarence
is a very solid person, no fanfare, always up-front, always ready
to help. We have a lot of Holy Cross friends in common. Clarence
has all kinds of friends.
Bill Reel,
Newsday, July 17, 1991
Seeking a handle on Thomas
By DAVID FRIEDMAN
reaction.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
"We expected the president to nominate a man or woman
WASHINGTON - Jewish organizations are preparing to
who was basically conservative," said Samuel Rabinove, the
take a close look at the record of Clarence Thomas, the 43-
agency's legal director.
year-old black conservative President Bush has nominated to
But Rabinove said Thomas should be closely questioned
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bush named Thomas to succeed Justice Thurgood Mar-
shall, the only black to have served on the court. Marshall
Jewish groups are
announced his retirement on June 27.
Thomas frequently expressed his opposition to minority
withholding
hiring quotas or to any type of racial preference during the
judgment on
time he was chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission from 1982 to 1989.
President Bush's
But his views on other issues important to the Jewish
nominee to the
community - such as abortion and the separation of church
and state - are largely unknown. Thomas has not dealt with
Supreme Court.
any of these issues since becoming a judge on the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1989.
But at least one
During a news conference Monday outside Bush's summer
JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS
home in Kennebunkport, Maine, Thomas refused to answer
RNS Photo
is very dismayed.
specific questions until his confirmation hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
But he did note that his remarks on quotas were made when
like any other nominee for the high court. "His being black
he was in a "policy-making role," and he has not yet had to
should not insulate him from critical scrutiny," he said.
deal with the issue as a judge.
AJCommittee and Thomas agree on their opposition to
Jewish groups rarely take stands on Supreme Court
numerical quotas. But AJCommittee supports "realistic goals
nominees and, in this case, are reserving judgment until they
and timetables," while Thomas believes these are de facto
know more about Thomas' positions. Some are submitting
quotas, Rabinove said.
suggested questions for Thomas to the Senate Judiciary
Sammie Moshenberg, Washington representatives of the
Committee.
National Council of Jewish Women, expressed concern that
But one organization, the American Jewish Congress, has
Thomas had no record on such issues as the right of privacy
already expressed strong reservations about the nomination,
and the separation of church and state.
though it has not decided whether to oppose it.
She also said the NCJW is "dismayed" by the record
Henry Siegman, the group's executive director, called
Thomas did have at the EEOC, where he displayed a lack of
Bush's choice "a disappointing one."
sympathy about attaining equal pay for women. She said the
In nominating Thomas, the president "seems to have
organization is also troubled that during his tenure Thomas
deliberately, with malice aforethought, nominated a man who
left 13,000 age-discrimination charges lapse without acting on
has been a thorn in the side of the entire civil rights
them.
community," Siegman said.
The B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League said in a
"It is an ungracious act at best, and one that does not honor
statement that it shares Thomas's opposition to racial
the legacy of Thurgood Marshall," he added.
preferences and quotas. But "it is important that his views on
The American Jewish Committee was more reserved in its
See COURT page 49
JEWISH EXPONENT
JULY 5, 1991
Newsday
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1991
BILL REEL
It's Clarence Thomas VS. the Media
A
T A HOLY CROSS alumni gathering on
June 8, the college's basketball coach,
applicants were evaluated differently from
George Blaney, was chatting with a
whites," said the story.
prominent alumnus, Connecticut Supreme Court
The piece went on at great length to imply insid-
Justice Angelo Santaniello, when U.S. Court of
iously that Yale let Thomas in because he was
Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas walked into the
black. Then, in the 25th paragraph of a 26-para-
room.
graph story, appeared the line:
Thomas, 43, spotted Santaniello. 67, embraced
"He was in the top 7 percent of his class at Holy
him and exclaimed, "My friend!" They exchanged
Cross."
greetings, then turned to Blaney to talk their fa-
This telling fact, of course. refutes the premise
vorite sport, basketball.
that Thomas benefited from a quota system. His
That scene was recalled by Santaniello in his
very high class rank at Holy Cross clearly qualified
chambers in New London this week as he spoke
him for Yale Law School without help from any
glowingly about Thomas, who, three weeks after
affirmative action policy.
their get-together at Holy Cross, was nominated
Was this story a deliberate attempt to diminish
by President George Bush for the U.S. Supreme
Thomas? Sure looks that way. How else can such a
Court.
smear be explained?
"We've known each other since he entered
Is the man qualified to serve on the United
Yale Law School in 1971," Santaniello said. "At
States Supreme Court? That's the real question, of
the time, Father John Brooks, the president of
course, and it will be decided by the United States
Holy Cross, asked me to look Clarence up and
Senate, where Clarence Thomas will be judged by
say hello. I did, and we've been friends ever
the likes of Teddy Kennedy. How reassuring.
since. At his request, I swore him in as chairman
Coach Blaney of Holy Cross commented the oth-
of the Equal Employn. Opportunity Commis-
er day, "Clarence is a very solid person. no fanfare.
sion in 1982.
always up-front, always ready to help. We have a
"How would I describe him: He's a very warm
lot of Holy Cross friends in common. Clarence has
person. Humble. personable, intense, straightfor-
all kinds of friends."
ward, with no airs. Clarence Thomas is a real fair
May his friends console him as his enemies at-
tack.
guy. He shouldn't be stereotyped, because he
won't walk a stereotyped line. Clarence calls it as
he sees it. not as someone wants him to see it.".
A few good words from an old friend seem appro-
priate to balance the bias against Thomas that pre-
vails in the media. For example, in a typically snide
swipe, a New York Times op-ed columnist wrote
last week that the revelation that he smoked pot a
couple of times in college "is the most humanizing
thing I have heard about Judge Thomas so far."
Really? This is the man who, after Bush intro-
duced him as his nominee for the Supreme Court,
struggled to hold back tears when he thanked the
loving grandparents who raised him and the devot-
ed nuns who taught him as a boy. That was as
human a moment as America has seen lately.
Thomas is believed to be at least skeptical of
abortion and possibly a foe of it. Abortion was
anathema to civilized Americans for most of the
nation's history, but the killing of unborn babies
has come to be fervently championed as an abso-
lute right by media opinion makers.
Thomas is at the media's mercy, and the bashing
is merciless. A Page 1 story in last Sunday's Times
suggested that he was admitted to Yale Law School
on his color and not his qualifications. 'Under the
program, which was adopted in 1971, the year
Judge Thomas applied, blacks and some Hispanic
in on OF THE INITED
The White House
Office of Public Affairs
Administration Wire
July 17, 1991
Supreme Court Nominee Judge Clarence Thomas
Excerpts from remarks by EPA Administrator William Reilly to the National
Association of Counties on July 16, 1991
"This nominee has a life story that has provided him with a distinctive
perspective on our history, its problems and its possibilities. He has a philosophy
which is serious and considered and deserves a hearing by the open-minded.
"And he has character that shows fiercely in his public recognition of the role
others have played in his success. You know, if ever there was an individual who
might reasonably have been expected to lay claim to the title, "self-made man," it is
Clarence Thomas.
"But he does not claim to have made it alone. He recognizes his grand
parents, his mother and his teachers for having shaped his values, instilled discipline
and taught him the value of hard work.
"Now, as he is pilloried for his philosophy and even for his religion, it strikes
me that there is a rush to judgement that preempts the confirmation process. One
wonders whether there will be an open mind anywhere when the Senate finally gets
around to asking detailed questions of Clarence Thomas.
"The President, Judge Thomas and the country all deserve better."
Excerpts from remarks by Transportation Secretary Samuel K. Skinner
to the Federal Bar Association on July 12, 1991
"As lawyers, the issue most on our lips today is the vacancy on the Supreme
Court left by the retirement of Thurgood Marshall."
"Judge Thomas came up the hard way. He was born and raised in a house
that didn't have electricity or indoor plumbing. He spent much of his youth working
on his grandfather's farm, and on an oil truck. His father left home when young
Clarence was just a toddler. Fortunately for Clarence, his grandfather scraped
together enough money to enroll him in a Catholic school, and he went on to
graduate from Holy Cross and Yale Law School."
"When Judge Thomas was a child, segregation was sanctioned in Georgia, and
he experienced all the indignities that came with it: separate lunch counters, separate
bathrooms, separate schools, even separate libraries."
Administration Wire
July 17, 1991
Page 2
"...I did not originally intend to discuss judicial philosophy, but I can't help but
mention that Judge Thomas is being criticized because he won't be a judicial activist
in the tradition of Justice Marshall, and for believing in judicial restraint. What's
wrong with that?"
"...I believe strongly, as does the President, that the founding Fathers reserved
political activism for Congress and the political process. Judge Thomas is a strict
constructionist, and as such, I believe his political view, whatever they may be, will
not influence his judicial decisions. We cannot know, and should not predict, how
Justice Thomas will rule on arguments brought before the Court. If the judge were
to ask my advice on how to handle questions about his philosophy -- which he
hasn't -- I would encourage him to repeat something Abraham Lincoln once wrote: 'I
have no eyes but constitutional eyes."
For more information, please contact the Office of Public Affairs at 202/456-2483.
STATE 5 UNITED ana
The White House
Office of Public Affairs
or
Administration Wire
July 19, 1991
Statement by
Secretary LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D.
at the
Annual Convention of the NAACP
July 8, 1991
"I am aware of the Joint Statement issued today by the
Chairman and Executive Director of the NAACP. I fully support
and encourage this review of Judge Thomas' record, for I am
confident that the NAACP will come to the same conclusion that I
have -- that Judge Thomas is an outstanding jurist and an
outstanding choice for the court. He is a man of integrity,
vision and scholarship. He embodies values that all of us
respect and honor -- a belief in hard work, education, family and
self reliance. His life has been a testament that poverty and
lack of opportunity can be overcome. He is committed to
fairness, to justice and to equal opportunity for all Americans
including our minority citizens.
"His nomination reflects an acknowledgement of the immense
diversity in the Black community. In that diversity, the
richness, the strength and the depth of the Black community in
economics, in politics, and in all phases of our lives is shown
to the whole nation.
"I have had a productive conversation with Dr. Hooks, and
look forward to working with other members of the NAACP on behalf
of Judge Thomas as the NAACP conducts their review."
* * *
Speech Excerpts by
SBA Administrator PAT SAIKI
to the
National Training Symposium
July 17, 1991
"
.I refer to a courageous man who climbed out of poverty
in the rural South, where he lived in a house with no indoor
plumbing.
.he made it through college with a combination of
scholarships, loans and jobs.
.he worked hard for a noteworthy
career and has been nominated to fill the current vacancy on the
Supreme Court.
ADMINISTRATION WIRE
JULY 19, 1991
PAGE 2
"I know from personal experience the trials Judge Clarence
Thomas endured. As a minority woman making her way through a
career and then in politics, there were struggles, but there was
never any doubt in my mind about the outcome. You, too, have
been along this road. We all have so much in common.
"
* *
Speech Excerpts by
OPM Director CONSTANCE B. NEWMAN
to the
Federally Employed Women
National Training Program
July 17, 1991
"
With regard to leadership, I would like to take a
moment to talk about the nominee for the United States Supreme
Court, I have known Judge Thomas for over a decade and have had
many occasions to talk with him about women in the work force. I
have had the opportunity to see him translate words into deeds -
- when at the EEOC, his chief of staff was a woman, the director
of his congressional and public affairs was a woman, the director
of hearings and appeals was a woman. I could go on. My point is
that the rights of women in the work force are protected by three
branches of government. You should be comfortable that work
force issues would be treated by Judge Thomas with openness, with
fairness and with sensitivity that recognizes that we still have
a long way to go to be equal. His confirmation should be
supported by women concerned with women in the work force
issues "
For more information please contact the Office of Public Affairs
at 202/456-2483.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
Delivered Wednesday, July 17, 1991 -- Manchester, New Hampshire
EXCERPTS FROM PREPARED REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
GREATER MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST
HOLIDAY INN, MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
All of us know the value of education. And I'll bet
everybody in this room remembers the teachers that really got to
them -- the teachers that changed their lives.
Remember who Judge Clarence Thomas thanked? The nuns at his
school. They cared, and they helped give him a direction in
life. I believe Judge Thomas is a living example of the value of
education -- and the American dream. He's our next Supreme Court
Justice -- President George Bush's second outstanding nominee.
The first was Justice David Souter, of Weare, New Hampshire.
In the past year, Justice Souter has shown himself to be a
very able and distinguished member of the Court -- sensible and
even-handed. But you'll remember that some special interest
groups lined up to oppose him. It was politics then, and it's
politics now. You have some people lining up against Judge
Thomas without even looking at his credentials, his character,
and his experiences in life. Instead, because they don't believe
he shares their political views, they've set out to attack him
personally.
I am proud to say that I know Judge Thomas, and have for
some years. In fact, he was in my office the day before
yesterday. He gave me a copy of a recent edition of JET, a
popular magazine that he remembers his grandparents reading years
ago. And he was very touched by the warm article about his
lifetime of achievement.
Judge Thomas was equally touched by the recent poll results
in USA Today, which showed that more than half of all black
Americans support him. They're proud of him, and they share his
values: faith, compassion, hard work, and self-reliance.
Today Judge Thomas sits on America's second highest court -
- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
He was confirmed last year -- with only two senators in
opposition. And he was confirmed three other times in the 1980s
for positions in the executive branch. That's four Senate
confirmations -- but, sadly, that doesn't matter to those lining
up against him. And they've got their long knives ready.
In recent days we've gotten a preview of the way the critics
2
want to fight this nomination. Columnist Carl Rowan said that
"if you gave Thomas a little flour on his face, you'd think you
had David Duke talking." One Congressman said that "a black
conservative is a contradiction in terms." A leader of the
National Organization for Women said, "We're going to 'Bork' him.
We need to kill him politically."
Even some people at distinguished law schools have gone
overboard in fighting Judge Thomas. That's especially true at a
certain university over in Massachusetts. Professor Laurence
Tribe suggested in Monday's New York Times that Judge Thomas
might not believe women have any legal rights. How's that for
hysteria? And Tribe's colleague Derrick Bell said that Judge
Thomas "looks black" but "thinks white."
Another professor from Washington argued the other day that
"blackness" means more than just being black. According to this
professor, it means you have to think a certain way -- and
Clarence Thomas apparently doesn't measure up.
There is an assumption in some quarters. that black Americans
shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves. But I think
Clarence Thomas's mother refuted this best : "Black people don't
have to think alike, they don't have to look alike, they don't
have to talk alike. And that Clarence, he always did have a mind
of his own."
And so do all Americans. They have minds of their own, and
they are fair. I served in the Senate for eight years; I believe
my former colleagues will be fair to Judge Thomas. But some
others are not being fair. And I believe the attacks, the
insults, and the attempts to impose "racially correct thinking"
ought to be rejected and denounced by every single Senator.
The confirmation process won't be easy for Judge Thomas.
But he's been through tough times before. Remember: he started
at the very, very bottom in the segregated South.
Some years back, Judge Thomas considered resigning as
Chairman of the EEOC when his opponents were attacking him.
He went to his grandfather for advice. And his grandfather
answered: "Stick up for what you believe in." I know that's
something that sounds familiar to you, because it's a way of life
here in New Hampshire. And there's no better motto for every
American.
# # #
JOHN C. DANFORTH
CLARENCE THOMAS AT THE EEOC
Mr. President, I am sure that in the next two months
much attention will be focused on Clarence Thomas's
chairmanship of the EEOC. Because Judge Thomas spent eight
years in that office, his stewardship deserves careful
attention. Surely, each of us should take the time to learn
about the Thomas era at the EEOC. What kind of chairman was
he? What was the Commission like before he took office, and
what is it like today? What do its employees say about his
chairmanship, and what does his tenure at the EEOC tell us
about Clarence Thomas as a person?
In order to learn the answers to these questions, I
decided to find out for myself. I went to the EEOC head-
quarters, met with people who had worked with Clarence
Thomas, walked the corridors and formed a clear impression of
Clarence Thomas, the Chairman. Today, I would like to share
my observations with the Senate, and to suggest that other
interested Senators do what I did--go to the EEOC head-
quarters and see for yourselves.
While at the headquarters, I had the opportunity to
speak with a wide variety of individuals. They were male and
female, black, white and Hispanic, able-bodied and visibly
07-16/91
15:12
2
disabled. Most held managerial or professional responsi-
bilities. One was a maintenance man in green overalls. One
worked as a driver for the Commission. They shared a common
commitment to the mission of their agency: to ensure equal
employment opportunities for all Americans. All had worked
with Clarence Thomas. Some had served at the Commission
years before the beginning of the Thomas era.
The clear message of those I visited was that Clarence
Thomas had transformed the EEOC from the dregs of the federal
bureaucracy to an efficiently operating agency which was
effectively performing the duties Congress had assigned to
it. The present Chairman, Evan Kemp, said that until
Clarence Thomas took over, the agency was generally con-
sidered to be, in his word, a "joke," and that Thomas had
transformed it into a first-class agency, equal to two others
where he had worked, the Internal Revenue Service and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
This observation was shared by others at the Commis-
sion. A white male attorney who has been with the EEOC since
1974, told me that Clarence Thomas "brought us from an also
ran agency to the first tier." He said that in the old days,
management of the Commission was not always held account-
able. He added that in the Thomas regime, "When I made hard
decisions, judgments were made on the merits. Politics did
not enter in. A woman, with the Commission since 1979 said,
"Today, people respect the EEOC.
...
(Thomas) worked very
hard to improve the quality of the staff."
07
16,91
15:13
3
A black woman told me that under Clarence Thomas,
"Computers started appearing all over the agency." She said
that on days when employees had to work until 2:00 a.m.,
Clarence Thomas would be there with them.
The financial management system of the Commission before
the Thomas regime was described as "a mess" before Clarence
Thomas arrived. Clarence Thomas cleaned up the mess,
according to a black female manager.
One of the most telling statements was made by a
51-year-old white male manager who had been with the EEOC for
21 years. He described himself as "a liberal, life-long
Democrat who had never voted for a Republican in my life." "
He said, "Clarence Thomas brought the agency into the modern
age. At the time he came, we couldn't tell you what cases we
had. He put in place a tracking system. We increased the
number of cases, and reduced the time for them. I never had
interference with how I handled cases. He made us proud to
work here."
I specifically inquired about age discrimination that
had lapsed because the statute of limitations had run. I was
told that these cases amounted to about .2 to .3 of 1 percent
of the case load, that they never would have been discovered
but for the computer program installed by Chairman Thomas,
and that when Mr. Thomas heard that age discriminations cases
had lapsed, he "saw red." One employee said that, "the
suggestion that the lapse was intended has no basis in fact." "
07/16/91
15:14
4
A blind attorney, with the EEOC, who now heads the
litigation program, said, "I feel personally offended at the
unfounded criticism" of Chairman Thomas.
The esprit de corps of the agency was described by an
attorney with the Commission, a black woman recruited by
Chairman Thomas in 1985. "He told me he wanted to move the
agency forward, to attract really good people. He had the
highest integrity. He had a high tolerance for disagree-
ment."
Even more illuminating than accounts of the Thomas
management of EEOC were the statements made about the
personal qualities of the Chairman. Several employees said
that the Chairman was personally involved in making the
Commission's new headquarters building accessible to the
disabled. One person said that Clarence Thomas learned
enough sign language so that he could encourage the hearing
impaired. Another said that when her son was injured in a
football accident, the Chairman came to her office to find
out how he was doing, and gave her the name of his own
physician. He later "kept coming down" to inquire about his
condition.
A long-term black employee who had worked for Martin
Luther King said that Chairman Thomas would bring young
employees to see her, and would say, "Willie, tell them about
Dr. King."
When I asked about the charges some have made that
Clarence Thomas has lost sight of his own experience with
07/16/91
15:14
5.
segregation, and that he lacked feeling for those who came
after him, a black maintenance man expressed his feelings
most eloquently, and without words. He simply looked at me.
Then slowly, deliberately, he turned both thumbs down.
A number of employees of the EEOC thought it important
to describe Clarence Thomas's last day as Commission
Chairman. They told of hundreds of employees standing in the
lobby in tears to say good-bye. When he walked out the door,
one middle-aged woman followed him outside, tears streaming
down her face.
The headquarters building of the EEOC has since been
named the Clarence Thomas Building. A plaque honoring him is
fixed to the lobby wall, its words composed, not by the
members of the Commission, but by the employees:
"Clarence Thomas, Chairman of the U. S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, May 17, 1982 -- March, 1990, is
honored here by the Commission and its employees with this
expression of our respect and profound appreciation for his
dedicated leadership exemplified by his personal integrity
and unwavering commitment to freedom, justice, equality of
opportunity and to the highest standards of government
service."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 16, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR: Governor Sununu
Andy Card
Judi Smith
Ed Rogers
Ken Duberstein
Bobbie Kilberg
Fred McClure
David Demarest
Ron Kaufman
Steve Hart
Leigh Anne Metzger
Mike Luttig
Gary Andres
Bill Kristol
Lee Liberman
Jim Dyer
John Mackey
Deb Amend
Dorrance Smith
FROM:
Ede Holiday
SUBJECT:
Clarence Thomas
Attached are speeches given recently by Bill Reilly and Sam
Skinner in support of Judge Thomas.
Attachments
REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION SAMUEL K. SKINNER
FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
JULY 12, 1991
Thank you for that kind introduction. It's hard to
believe that it has been almost three years since the
President selected me to be Secretary of Transportation,
and I moved to Washington.
Even though I've been away, my love for Chicago is
stronger than ever. It is really true that absence makes
the heart grow fonder.
Washington and Chicago are both great cities. Both
are large cities of great tradition and history. But the
biggest difference is that Washington is a city of
transplants. The leaders of our federal government in
Washington are almost always transplants from
somewhere else.
Some, however, don't return, choosing to make
Washington their home. And if you're in Washington
too long, you can forget sometimes what this country is
all about, what makes it great, and sometimes that
varies from moment to moment. We get wrapped up in
what's going on in Washington, forgetting the
significance of our decisions and their impact on
America. For that reason, trips like this are so very
important to me. Thank you again for inviting me.
P O 2
2 WV9T:20 I6 121 '20
2
As lawyers, the issue most on our lips today is the
vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the retirement of
Thurgood Marshall. I thought it would be appropriate
to share some observations not only from inside
Washington's beltway, but how I think the President's
candidate to fill that vacancy relates to us in Illinois and
one of the most important national leaders our state
has ever produced: Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is revered
almost as highly in Washington as he is in Illinois; he
occupies a position second only to George Washington.
People measure Presidents against the standard of
Abraham Lincoln. When I began to focus on Judge
Thomas as the next justice, I was struck by the
similarities with Abraham Lincoln. Let me share with
you my thoughts.
First, as you all know one of the greatest parts of
Lincoln's legacy is the impression he made on other
people. That's why in preparing for my trip here today,
I
thought it was important to talk to few people who
know the nominee well. Let me share with you what
they had to say (Extemporaneous)
But let me return to my original question: How does
Judge Thomas measure up to the standard of Lincoln?
Judge Thomas has an enormous intellect. Abraham
POS
07. 12. 91 07:18AM *DOT/PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2
3
Lincoln's intellect was evident early when he was a
brilliant trial lawyer and debater.
Judge Thomas came up the hard way. He was born
and raised in a house that didn't have electricity or
indoor plumbing. He spent much of his youth working
on his grandfather's farm, and on an oil truck. His
father left home when young Clarence was just a
toddler. Fortunately for Clarence, his grandfather
scrapped together enough money to enroll him in a
Catholic school, and he went on to graduate from Holy
Cross and Yale Law School.
At best, Abraham Lincoln had only one year of formal
education. Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin on
the Kentucky frontier, and his mother died when he was
a youngster. He lost two sons, including one while he
was President, trying to save the union. In the case of
both, a background of hardship shaped and formed
their character.
Both Lincoin and Thomas experienced discrimination
first hand. It didn't involve race in Lincoln's case, but his
appearance. His gangly, gawky appearance was
repeatedly made fun of by his opponents. At the 1860
Republican Convention at which he was nominated, his
opponents called him a baboon, an ape and even worse.
When Judge Thomas was a child, segregation was
POA
2 SHIVHHV 121 .20
4
sanctioned in Georgia, and he experienced all the
indignities that came with it: separate lunch counters,
separate bathrooms, separate schools, even separate
libraries.
Why is that important? Because Lincoln's and
Thomas's life experiences gave them perhaps their
greatest quality: Empathy. President Lincoln was often
criticized because he spent so much time, as President,
listening to petitions from average citizens; what
congressmen call casework. It made him a better
President. It will make Judge Thomas an outstanding
justice.
Another important and often overlooked item in
thinking about Lincoln is humor. Judge Thomas, they
tell me, has a great sense of humor. He was asked once
if he sometimes refuses to toe the line. "I'm a Dallas
Cowboys fan," he said. "I love unpopular causes."
Given the past couple of seasons, I might add that you
need a sense of humor to be a Chicago Bears fan. When
asked how the media would react to him, he said:
"Here's a strange black. Let's go see if he has two heads
and a tail." Lincoln had a great sense of humor. Why is
that important? Because it is important in keeping
one's balance. People who can poke fun, especially at
themselves, show they have a good sense of who they
90 ₫
2 DITENd/LOG* WV91:20 T6 121 '20
5
are and the ability to put things in perspective. That's
important in a justice of the Supreme Court?
What about experience in government office? Judge
Thomas was a Senate legislative assistant for a year and
a half; assistant attorney general of Missouri for two
years; and assistant secretary in the Department of
Education for almost two years; chairman of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission for seven years;
and more than a year on the D. C. Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals.
What about Abraham Lincoln? He spent two years in
Congress, four years in the Illinois General Assembly,
and a couple of years in the Illinois militia. I might add
that Judge Thomas has more experience in the federal
judiciary than at least three Supreme Court Justices prior
to their confirmation: Earl Warren, Hugo Black and
Sandra Day O'Connor.
I do not mean to suggest that Clarence Thomas is
another Abraham Lincoln. He isn't. No one is. But the
qualities Lincoln possessed led him to the history books
as one of our great Presidents during our nation's
darkest hour. He accomplished great things as
President, but it was his background and his experiences
that shaped him and propelled him to achieve what he
PO9
07. 12. 91 07:18AM *DOT/PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2
6
did, and they make an effective yardstick by which to
measure others.
I did not originally intend to discuss judicial
philosophy, but I can't help but mention that Judge
Thomas is being criticized because he won't be a judicial
activist in the tradition of Justice Marshall, and for
believing in judicial restraint. What's wrong with that?
George Bush's belief in judicial restraint, and his intent
to apply that belief in the nomination of federal judges,
was well known when the American people elected him
as President.
I thought one of the most important moments in
Justice O'Connor's conformation ten years ago came
when she was asked by Senator Strom Thurmond to
discuss her philosophy and voting record as an Arizona
State Senator on matters relating to abortion. Here's
part of what she said: "Issues that come before the
Court should be resolved based on the facts of that
particular case or matter and on the law applicable to
those facts. They should not be based on the personal
views and ideology of the judge with regard to that
particular matter or issue."
That's the essence of judicial restraint. As a great
respecter of the Constitution's separation of powers, I
believe strongly, as does the President, that the
POP
2 16 121 '20
7
founding Fathers reserved political activism for
Congress and the political process. Judge Thomas is a
strict constructionist, and as such, I believe his political
views, whatever they may be, will not influence his
judicial decisions. We cannot know, and should not
predict, how Justice Thomas will rule on arguments
brought before the Court. If the judge were to ask my
advice on how to handle questions about his philosophy
-- which he hasn't -- I would encourage him to repeat
something Abraham Lincoln once wrote: "I have no
eyes but constitutional eyes
I believe Judge Thomas will be confirmed. He
certainly deserves to be confirmed. By the standard of
Lincoln, he measures up. He has the intellect. He has
the background. He understands hardship. He
understands discrimination. He has a sense of humor.
And he has the experience.
Thank you again for asking me out here today. I'd be
happy now to take a few questions.
PO8
07. 12. 91 07:18AM *DOT/PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2
SENT BY:The White House
: 7-16-91 ; 3:42PM :
CABINET AFFAIRS-
The White House:# 3
07/16/91 12:02
202 245 9684
ADMIN OFFICE EPA - CABINET AFFAIRS 003/017
-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20480
OFFICER
THE APAINISTRATOR
FACT AND FICTION TN WETLANDS REGULATION
Address By
WILLIAM K. REILLY
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
July 16, 1991
Solt Lake City, Utah
Primise - spring. Paper
07/16/91
12:02
202 245 3684
ADMIN OFFICE EPA --- CABINET AFFAIRS
004/017
Thank you, Michael (Stewart, President, National Association
of Counties, and Commissioner, Salt Lake County, Utah). I am
pleased and honored to bc here today. I have long respected and
admired NACo officials for the front line public service you
porform. For 16 of the last 21 years, I took a special interest
as a private conservationist in local issues of land conservation
and development. And in the five years T served in government, I
acquired a different vantage point on what you do. NOW 1 300 you
as fellow victims of unrealistic expectations. Now I, Loo, am
the object of conflicting requirements and insistent demands. I,
ton, get. more responsibilities placed on my agency than authority
or resources to carry them out. The only advantage I have over
you is that after I make a contentious decision affecting a
landtill or an incinerator, I don't have to go before the voters
and get reelected. I serve at the pleasure of someone who
aspires to be the environmental president, and that makes a whole
lot of difference.
Tn n moment, I will discuss some issues Lhal concern both of
us and that pose special problems for the Environmental
Protection Agency and also for local officials. But lot mc first
signal a matter that is deeply important to President Bush and Lo
our Administration, and that is the confirmation of Judge
Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court.
This nomince has a life history that has provided him with a
distinctive perspective on our country, its problems and its
possibilities. He has a philosophy which is serious and
considered and deserves a hearing by the open-minded. And he has
07/16/91
12:02
202 245 3684
ADMIN OFFICE EPA CABINET AFFAIRS
005/017
2
character that shows fiercely in his public rocognition of the
role others have playod in his success. You know, if ever there
was an individual who might reasonably have boon expected to lay
claim to the title, "self-made man, it is Clarence Thomas. But
he does not claim to have made it alone. He recognizes his
grandparents, his mother and his teachers for having shaped his
values, instilled discipline and taught him the value of hard
work. Now as he is pilloried for his philosophy and even for his
religion, it strikes me that there is a rush to judgment that
preempts the confirmation process. One wonders whother there
will be an open mind anywhere when the Senate finally gets around
to asking detailed questions of Clarence Thomas. The President,
Judge Thomas and the country all deserve better!
So from the storm over Judge Thomas, let me turn to
stormwater. Some of you may know that stormwater is a
significant source of pollution to our nation's waters. Some wf
you may even have heard that EPA has issued a proposed stormwater
rule.
Well, I'm being facetious. Judging by comments T have
received, a great many of you know a good deal about stormwater
and don't like our rule very much cr what you've heard about
it or fear it. will mean. We have heard your concerns. I hope we
have understood you. In response to your views, we expect to
issue a proposal in the next few weeks for a general permit which
EPA regions and states can use as a model to cover stormwater
associated with industrial activity, for which some of you may