Our Constitution and Supreme Court - Is there a Keeper of the Flame?

Lee Ellis

Our TV screens have been full, lately, lamenting the fact that some Black Americans felt hurt that President Bush, in an interview with Neil Cavuto, said that a Black presidential candidate was articulate. Joe Biden also had the same problem when he thought he was complimenting a presidential candidate. We seem to have gotten to an age where compliments for those who have moved on from Sharpton, Jackson and members of the Black Caucus, are now regarded as offensive.

But where were all these people when a bright young Black man born in 1948 was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall as Justice on the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush in 1991?

Clarence Thomas seemed to receive the same verbal pummeling as is received today by President George W. Bush. All manners of attacks were staged to keep him from being appointed, and in his years on the Court, his decisions have also been assailed by many leftist pundits and politicians to the left of center.

In 1994, Douglas T. Kendall, executive director of Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm, wrote in The Washington Post a scathing article against Justice Thomas, when it was discovered that he might be selected to replace William Rehnquist as Chief Justice if he retired or passed away. Supposedly Justice Scalia said "Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that." It is reported that thirty-four times during the John Roberts hearing, the senators and the nominee mentioned stare decisis -- the Latin term for letting existing precedents stand.

In other words, we get down to whether or not we have justices who are willing to state that a previous ruling was based not on our Constitution but rather on a European one or on legislative opinions rather than judicial interpretations of our American Constitution as created by our forefathers, and is therefore wrong and thus needs to be changed.

Is there a Justice who really believes in being a true Constitutionalist? Is someone keeping the flame of our founding fathers from dying out?

Yes, says Henry Mark Holzer, professor-emeritus at Brooklyn Law School and author of many articles and books. (www.henrymarkholzer.com ) as well as editor of the Supreme Court Watch (www.supremecourtwatch.info). He writes that there is truly a "Keeper of the Flame" in the Supreme Court and he proves it with a brand new book just published by McFarland and Company this winter. Titled, "The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas, 1991-2006," it has a subtitle, "A Conservative's Perspective." Professor Holzer believes that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has always been a staunch defender of the Constitution. In his introduction to the book, Holzer writes, "Attacks on Justice Thomas have been unconscionable distortions of an unambiguous and distinguished record. Simple justice requires they be rebutted because his opinions, often eloquent, reveal him as a conservative who understands the role of a Supreme Court Justice, the methodology of proper constitutional and statuary adjudication and the appropriate resolution of the many issues that have come to the Court during his tenure."

While this book does not go into biographical details of his life, we have to remember that Clarence Thomas has written nearly 350 opinions. Thus, thousands of his eloquent and thoughtful words are in this book for Americans to examine. Assuming that my readers are seekers of truth, you can obtain this book on line at www.mcfarlandpub.com or phone 1-800-253-2187.

Although most of you are familiar with his life, let me remind you that Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small community outside Savannah. His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance and would counsel him to "never let the sun catch you in bed in the morning". He attended both Holy Cross and Yale Universities. In 1975, when Thomas read Race and Economics by economist Thomas Sowell, he found an intellectual foundation for this philosophy. The book criticized social reforms by government and instead argued for individual action to overcome circumstances and adversity. Thomas later said that this book changed his life. Another favorite book of his is Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

Rush Limbaugh recently said about the theme that stands out when reading about these opinions of Justice Thomas, "It is not a judge's job to make social policy; much harm can result when they try."

And as I wrote in 2005, "Yes, Congress does advise and consent with an up and down vote, but not with a filibuster or a refusal to allow a full vote. The choice of a federal judge appointee has always been with, and should remain, the domain of the Executive branch of government led by the President of the United States of America. Will our Supreme Court continue to be a Constitutional one, or will it rival Congress as a new Legislative branch? It is up to us to back the President's choice of Supreme Court judges who will defend and protect the true meaning of our most revered document, the American Constitution!" Thanks, Professor Holzer, for helping so many of us better understand our Constitution and learning more about decisions made in our Judicial branch by Justice Clarence Thomas.

###

Lee Ellis is a retired journalist and narrator, formerly with both CBS and Gannett (USA Weekend). He was also a combat veteran of WWII, having fought in the South Pacific invasions. He had the pleasure of interviewing Ronald Reagan as an actor and then later working to help him become Governor of California. At the age of 80, he is keeping busy writing and doing free lance narrations for radio and television. He is an active member of Rotary and the VFW.

indiolee@dc.rr.com