Customer Reviews

Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

This is a difficult book to rate. It's easy reading -- obviously written more to entertain than to inform -- and it's highly biased against the subject yet presented in such a way as to pretend to be balanced. It is character assassination in print.

The subtitle, "The divided soul of Clarence Thomas" is not proven by the discourse. It is obvious that Thomas has a very clear idea of who he is and what the law should be. He is staunch in his beliefs and true to his conscience. There is nothing divided about him.

Justice Thomas seems to have figured out what most of his peers (and definitely the authors)haven't: That affirmative action has proved to be a double-edged sword, as harmful to blacks as it has been useful. It is obvious that Thomas simply considers himself a man, neither black nor white, as he gazes at life and law through clear glasses. To many blacks (and obviously to the authors) this is the Unforgivable Sin.

Thus they portray Justice Thomas as almost manically introspective, weak and flawed. They emphasize the pain he endured over the years from racial slurs and imply that he is almost useless on the court because he can't forget Anita Hill's attacks during his confirmation trial before Congress. I use the word trial intentionally here.

I had wondered why Justice Thomas was publishing a memoir at this time since it would necessarily bring Hill to the forefront again. This book must be the reason. He knew this would be what it is when he refused the authors access to himself and his memorabilia. He was right. The prejudice against him here is almost hysterical.

One of the points the authors belabor again and again is their contention (and yes, it has been said by others) that Thomas is a lackey to or clone of Justice Scalia because they vote the same way. I believe it was Jan Crawford Greenburg (whose new book, "Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States," is just published) who said in an interview on Book TV just last weekend that she had gone through all the records specifically to determine whether there was truth in that particular assumption. She says in most cases Thomas voted first and that it might be more accurate to say that it was Scalia who followed in Thomas's footsteps. That research should have been done by these authors.

Since their prejudice against Justice Thomas is so pronounced and their indictments of his character so repetitious I can't help but wonder what material they left out from their massive second-source research. It would not be presumptuous to assume that they were highly selective in order to prove their thesis that Thomas is so flawed that he is ineffective on the Court (something that isn't said but is strongly implied in these pages).

One of the things they object to most about him is the fact that he seldom asks questions during court sessions. They don't seem to realize that when one is talking, s/he isn't learning. Justice Thomas says someone always asks the questions he would, so he just listens until the answer surfaces. That is wisdom.

What they object to most, however, seems to be that Thomas is a Constitutional originalist. That is, he believes in the Constitution as written and is suspicious of re-creating it "to fit" contemporary times. He is less inclined to use stare decisis (respect for precedent) when considering cases and he believes strongly in the rights of states to handle most social issues. That conservatism truly irks the authors and I believe these are the reasons they have chosen to emphasize the negative and present such a biased smear.

Almost every page and certainly every chapter belabors the anger and pain that Justice Thomas presumably harbors from his growing up years (in addition to the Hill episode). He would be have to be insane if he wasn't hurt and the fact that he has risen above the destiny presumed by his birth and has served so honorably at various levels of government, including the highest court in the land, shows the mettle of the man.

Justice Clarence Thomas is a great American and a noble jurist who is doing his best. We can ask no more of anyone.

Michael Fletcher and Kevin Merida have taken on one of the hardest of hard targets and delivered a masterpiece. Clarence Thomas might just be the most intriguing and elusive figure in modern American society, the source of endless speculation and commentary, and yet no one until now has successfully cracked open the shell to look deeper inside. This is no liberal screed or conservative apologia. It's a thoughtful, balanced and insightful book that renders a fully realized portrait of a complicated man and his relationship to the world around him.

These two reporters for The Washington Post were obviously devoted to tossing aside the easy stereotypes in favor of a three-dimensional biography that does not cast judgment. They chronicle Thomas's tumultuous relations with his own family, his searing experiences as a young man and his evolution from a devotee of Malcolm X speeches into the nation's most prominent black conservative. They portray a man nursing grievances at the political system that so bruised him, yet eager to sit in his chambers for hours at a time with strangers who happen to visit. They describe a man with strong world views who is anything but Antonin Scalia's puppet. They depict a man struggling with his place as the most powerful African American in a country where most African Americans revile him.

It's unfortunate that Thomas refused to speak with the authors, but many, many others did, including relatives, friends and other justices such as Scalia. And it turns out that Thomas in his many speeches has been more revealing than many public figures, producing a body of work that the authors have ably tapped to explore his view of his own life.

If you're interested in refighting ideological wars, this is not the book for you. If you're interested in gaining a better understanding of who Clarence Thomas really is, this is the only book to read.

There is perhaps no other Supreme Court Justice is recent memory who has remained as enigmatic and inscrutable as Justice Clarence Thomas. The man simply bubbles over with contradictions and a truly remarkable Horatio Alger story that almost defies belief. Merida and Fletcher attempt to explain and explore who Thomas is, what shaped his life, his values, and his beliefs, and to try and sort truth from fiction; a tall order for someone so polarizing and who speaks publicly so infrequently. To many in the African-American community Thomas is a sellout who has betrayed their community and has forgotten his roots. But along the way the authors' well-researched account finds faults and flaws with Thomas. Evidence is found that supports Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment and there is little they find that can reconcile Thomas's cognitive dissonance regarding his embrace of conservative dogma and the way he has benefited from affirmative action. Their attempts to probe Thomas's psyche similarly fall somewhat flat; a problem compounded by the fact that Thomas says and writes so very little about himself to analyze. What emerges is someone who is a bit like Thomas Jefferson; someone who says one thing but does another.

Ultimately "Supreme Discomfort" demonstrates how racially charged the topic of Justice Thomas is. There have been several books written about the man, yet none seems to really understand or explain him. Like many black conservatives Thomas is easy to demonize and criticize, yet we still have no understanding of what thoughts, ideals, or experiences led him to embrace conservativism. Liberals see Thomas as a race traitor while conservatives point to him as a role model for blacks. Rather than actually representing anything Thomas has become a mirror, reflecting what we want to see in our society, but ultimately representing nothing because he remains remote and aloof, a stranger to all but himself. And rather than examining Thomas's opinions to gain insight into his thoughts and characters, the authors avoid doing so for reasons they never clearly articulate. Perhaps they have read them and seen them as providing nothing; instead reflecting back at us what we want to see.

In Supreme Discomfort the authors Merida and Fletcher try hard to create a biography of Justice Thomas based on interviews with childhood associates, former classmates, extended family, and former law clerks, in addition to crafting a social science construct to his background. However, using this approach produces a book that tells the reader less about the purported subject than about how he is viewed. More effort is spent trying to put Thomas into a category of being angry and resentful of slights than seeking to flesh out the nuances of this very complicated figure.

The authors delve into the fact that Thomas is reviled as an Uncle Tom in the black community, but do little to explain either Thomas' views or his antagonists other than a for or against basis. In a late chapter they bring Henry Louis Gates Jr. into the discussion to argue that affirmative action is good, but do not look at Thomas' writings and speeches where he argues for an approach based on merit and economic factors over race.
The authors seem to want to stress what they think Thomas should be, rather than examine their subject's own views. There is more of a discussion of Justice Scalia's pizza preferences than the nuances of Textual Originalism that in many cases leads both justices down different paths. Jan Crawford Greenberg does a much better job looking at what the justices actually do and their legal philosophies in Supreme Conflict.

The narrative flow of the text is somewhat choppy going forward and backward chronologically without warning, as if the two authors were writing different sections. There are a few nice anecdotes, such as the gag eyeballs tossed to clerks "keep an eye on things", but otherwise the authors seem to accept the consensus views of the media. Ken Foskett in Judging Thomas does a better job explaining the work of the EEOC and the Court, goes into extensive genealogical and historical background of Pin Point, and had more access to the subject. However, of the three biographies Supreme Discomfort, Judging Thomas , Thomas' own My Grandfather's Son, the autobiography is by far the best written and edited, although by necessity it stops when Thomas joins the court.

I bought this book because it was the book that our book club choose to read that month. I kind of knew what kind of person Clarence was, but this book just really confirmed it.

I am sure the authors did the best that they could without interviewing the Justice and the book is well written. However, I am not even sure I would read Thomas' own book which came out after this one. Justice Thomas is complex and you are never really sure where he is coming from. Friends argued a case a year or so ago at the U.S. Supreme Court, and I remember one attorney mentioning that Judge Thomas never said a word or asked one question. At least the authors had that part right. I will be donating this one to our local library.

Clarence Thomas is a difficult man. A black man who is defined by his race in many respects who is striking out on his own. HIs life is full of contradictions. He followed Thurgood Marshall, a leader in the fight for black rights, whose views Thomas seems to reject. On the other hand he treats the black workers at the Court with respect, which apparently Marshall never did. He inspires loyalty from his clerks to a degree which is unusual and yet does not help his nephew when he was in trouble with the law. He seems interested in his legacy and yet refuses to be interviewed by these authors.

The effort by two black reporters sets forth all these contradictions and yet it does not satisfy me in explaining Thomas. Maybe he can not be explained.

The book deals with his life well and yet does not really deal with his judicial output. We learn that he works hard and has friends on the court or at least has a congenial relationship with many. HOwever it appears tha his influence is minor. It is hard to read a long book about a Justice without making at least an effort to deal with his output. It is like writing about Jackie Robinson and leaving out how he played the game. I realize that an analysis of his work was not part of the book but maybe it should have been.