Most Helpful Customer Reviews
29 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
I would recommend this book but with reservations., July 25, 2007
This review is from: Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas (Hardcover)
Except for a scant recollection of the Hill-Thomas Trial that aired on TV when I was a kid, I did not know anything about Clarence Thomas. My husband recommended this book after listening to a radio interview with the authors.
Firstly, I don't think this is the right book to pick up coming in with little to no knowledge of Thomas. The book is based on an accumulation of interviews, speeches and Thomas' writing and court decisions. It's interesting to note that Thomas declined to be interviewed for this book.
In a nutshell here is what I learned: Thomas is a Conservative. He benefited from affirmative action but he denies that he did, except to bring it up when it suits him, and he refuses to support it. He idolized his Grandfather. He is in the group of justices who believes his job is to interpret the Constitution as the founders would have intended, rather than adjust to the attitudes of the time. He rarely participates in oral arguments. Anita Hill really hurt him emotionally. He's sensitive. If you get on his bad side he'll hold a grudge and you'll be off his list ~ FOREVER. Most black people think he's a sellout. He's really a personable guy who would love to know you - yes YOU, who are of little significance, and once you get to know him, you actually like him! (And what's not to like? He's not off spewing hatred). He's simply a man in power armed with an opinion that goes against the majority minority, which people see is in sharp contrast from his deprived upbringing, which really wasn't that bad actually, only people tend to ignore that fact. All of this is discussed in the book and become points of contentions, and to me reading about it felt like sitting on a fence where the arguments could go either way.
Personally I think there are answers to Thomas' behavior, as sited in the book, which leave little mystery for his actions. But let's just lay it out there: he's a black man sitting on a high court, having replaced Thurgood Marshall who held very different views, and therefore his actions will be judged much harsher.
Perhaps it's because Thomas is seen as an anomaly, or perhaps the book isn't well written, but this book didn't do much for me; I came away feeling neutral about the whole "controversy." I certainly don't believe the book is a liberal attack on a conservative, just a bit jumbled with too much of the same information, and at times not all together accurate (example: the "Twinkie Defense" (312) as described in urban legend form). Some sections didn't seem to carry a point. Some paragraphs had to be picked apart because they were poorly written. A note of one small, but reoccurring annoyance, is the reintroduction of people. Take for example Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Noting who he is once (141) is informative and expected. Twice (237), okay, it's later in the book and perhaps I forgot. Three times (291)?! Do the authors really lack that much faith in their reader's retention abilities?
I agree with the previous reviewer who remarked that they didn't think the book reached a greater point. I certainly plan on reading Thomas' autobiography when it comes out in October '07, and have selected other books to read that the authors noted in their book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
31 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Hard Book to Categorize, May 18, 2007
This review is from: Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas (Hardcover)
What you take from this book depends largely upon why you would read a book on Justice Thomas in the first place. If you are looking for the classic judicial biography, that integrates biography with Supreme Court case analysis, this is not the book for you. Far better choices in this regard are Ken Foskett's "Judging Thomas" (also reviewed on Amazon), and Gerber"s "First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas." Rather this book authored by two respected Washington Post reporters (one of whom is a lawyer) rather tries to get at Thomas as a person. While it follows generally a biographical course, it is much more focused upon what the many folks interviewed by the author -- and they had done just an enormous amount of research to support this book -- think (or thought) of "Thomas the man." The Justice did not make himself available for interviews with the authors, however.
About the first 1/3 of the book, the focus seemed to be on what African-Americans who knew Thomas at various stages of his life think or thought of him. This is quite a unique perspective, both authors being black, because it has not been so much the focus in other books on Thomas I have looked at. Then later the focus seemed to be what anybody and everybody thought of Thomas, from his fellow Justices to people he meets as he drives his motorcoach around the country on vacation. The problem with this approach are the views of all the folks whom the authors didn't interview. I found some chapters unimpressive ("Silent Justice" re his lack of questionning at oral argument) and others quite good ("Scalia's Clone?").
I think you do learn a good deal about Justice Thomas; I certainly feel a better grasp on his character and attitudes especially after having read the book. But there is only so far you can go with this approach. In any regard, the Justice's autobiography is due out shortly. I am sure this will lead to another round of Thomas examination and debate. He certainly is an interesting figure. On that there is no debate.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
36 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Another look at Clarence Thomas, June 14, 2007
This review is from: Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas (Hardcover)
Last week I finished Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, Michael Fletcher and Kevin Merida's new book about you know who. But I found myself picking it up again this week, just to re-read certain sections. Some of the stories about Thomas' life (I'm especially interested in his time as Chair of the EEOC and his life post-Supreme Court confirmation) are just fascinating. The book is compelling in large part because Fletcher and Merida are meticulously fair to Thomas, chronicling his generosity to friends, willingness to mentor young people, and his loyalty, as well as his crushing insecurity, his childish resentment of light-skinned blacks, and his pathologically thin-skin (this guy never forgets a slight). This is no hatchet job. But it's also no tribute. It's a thoroughly researched book that bears the mark of damned good journalism. And yet you feel the authors' (both black) genuine effort to understand how Thomas came to be . . . Thomas. What emerges is a picture of a highly intelligent black man who has in almost every phase of his public life either been compelled or who has chosen to confront some of the thorniest, most complex questions about race. As the authors reveal, Thomas to his credit, is unafraid to address the conundrum of race. But what we see is a man so deeply damaged --both emotional and psychologically - that his answers to these difficult questions are almost always warped by his often very painful, personal racial experiences. And this damage was in place long before the infamous confirmation hearings.
What emerges also is a picture of a man who has almost always lived a dual life, and so the book is aptly named. Thomas is, according to Fletcher and Merida, "a welter of conflicting personas." From his childhood -- principally spent not in the destitution of PinPoint, Georgia where he lived only until he was six, but in the middle- class home of his grandfather in Savannah -- to his time as the lone black at Catholic schools and one of very few at Holy Cross college, Thomas' walk has been marked by duality. And while this is true for many middle-class blacks - especially those educated at elite white institutions in the `70s and `80s - Thomas appears to never have been able to comfortably integrate his disparate experiences into one identity. Instead he continues to advance two very different identities, even now -- posturing as a kind of independent black intellectual freedom fighter (a role he plays out in dissents and concurrences in almost every race case the Court decides) -- while rabidly insisting that others not associate him with being black. In fact, Thomas seems to go out of his way to write concurrences and dissents in race cases just to provide a kind of "black" perspective. Yet an obsession of his professional life has been his insistence that he not be defined by his race. And he demands this of others as well. Indeed, according to the authors, Thomas won't hire blacks as law clerks if they've taken what he calls "that Afro-American studies stuff" as undergraduates!
In any case, Supreme Discomfort is a fascinating read. I don't think it's likely to change anyone's mind about Thomas. I finished the book even more troubled by him than I was before. I was particularly disturbed by Thomas' cozyness with some of the most revolting characters of the right (presiding at the wedding of Rush Limbaugh!). And it was disconcerting to see how many former law clerks to Justice Thomas have ended up in the Bush Administration as authors of policies supporting virtually unrestrained Presidential power [a position Thomas has forcefully endorsed in several recent Supreme Court decisions]. But read the book yourself. There are enough stories here to give us a window into the life of one of the most powerful and reviled black men in America.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
