I received this nine-page, single-spaced letter in my e-mail.
Here is a portion:
"And who is this man the students and faculty will be forced to listen to if they attend the ceremony? Justice Thomas is a reactionary judicial activist–a right-wing extremist pretending to be a neutral and impartial judge. His judicial philosophy amounts to "a new, aggressive, and repressive judicial activism." Niles, Clarence Thomas: The First Ten Years Looking For Consistency, 10 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 327, 332 (2002). This man's judicial philosophy embodies the right-wing extremist agenda. He has a narrow view of the basic rights of Americans and usually votes to denigrate and attenuate those rights.
In cases involving criminal procedure, civil rights, civil liberties, the rights of prisoners, and the writ of habeas corpus he almost always sides with the government and rejects the claims of individuals that their rights were violated. "Thomas has . . . been a consistent member of the Court's most conservative wing since his first term. . . . If judicial liberalism is defined in the traditional fashion as support for individuals' rights in disputes with the government, Thomas stands out as a strong conservative in any analysis. . . . Justice Thomas has established a consistent and predictable voting record as a dependable member of the Court's most conservative ing. . . . [H]e articulates . . . a vision of constitutional interpretation that . . . advances his preferences for . . . diminution of constitutional protections for individuals." Smith, Clarence Thomas: A Distinctive Justice, 28 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1, 2, 28 (1997). He believes that the role of the courts in protecting individual rights is very limited. He not infrequently expresses an inclination to overrule landmark pro-human rights Supreme Court precedents. He doesn't think much of the writ of habeas corpus.
Indeed, in O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U. S. 432, 447 (1995), in a dissenting opinion, he went so far as to assert: "We have ample cause to be wary of the writ [of habeas corpus!]." I can recall only one case where Justice Thomas has ever voted in favor of granting relief to a habeas corpus petitioner, and in that case Justice Thomas, along with Justice Scalia, took a narrower view than the Court of the petitioner's rights and only concurred in part and in the judgment. Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U. S. 433 (1997).
He is shrilly pro-death penalty. He "expresses little sympathy for the plight of the incarcerated." Note, Lasting Stigma: Affirmative Action and Clarence Thomas's Prisoners' Rights Jurisprudence, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1341 (1999). He is "the first justice to criticize, even indirectly, the ruling in Brown [v. Board of Education] . . ." Id. at 1348 n. 50.
Furthermore, some of Justice Thomas's opinions rejecting claims of violations of rights are written a mocking, scornful tone inappropriate in a judge but typical of a right-wing extremist.
In deciding individual rights cases Justice Thomas almost always votes the same as the two other right-wing extremists serving on the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia. See, e.g., Wilkins, Worthington, Chow, Chow & Becker, Supreme Court Voting Behavior: 2000 Term, 29 Hastings Const. L. Q. 247 (2002) (tables of voting patterns of Supreme Court justices since 1991 term). Justice Thomas is therefore one of the principal reasons why tragically in recent years the Supreme Court has been implementing a counterrevolution in criminal procedure and individual rights–a counterrevolution which has narrowed the legal rights and remedies of Americans against government, enlarged the power of the state over the individual, and transformed the role of the Court from that of the keeper of the nation's conscience to that of a cost-benefit analysis calculating machine."
Many moons ago (when dinosaurs ruled the earth) my mother made the observation: "Only the insane write letters more than 4 pages long." And throughout my life I have noticed that this tends to be the rule, not the exception.