The Senate Judiciary Committee was split along party lines when it came to passing the Democrat-backed Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023—but an amendment condemning racist attacks on Justice Clarence Thomas has been added with unanimous support.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) proposed the amendment following high profile racist name-calling targeting Justice Thomas, including from high ranking Democrats.
Minnesota Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison had likened Justice Thomas to a “house slave” this month after unfavorable Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, while Sen. Emanuel Jones (D-Ga.) called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom” who sold his soul to the “slave masters” when arguing against placing a monument of Justice Thomas at Georgia’s capitol in February.
“How can you not condemn a statement calling Justice Clarence Thomas a house slave?” Mr. Kennedy asked when objections were raised.
“This kind of rhetoric hasn’t been directed toward John Roberts, it hasn’t been directed to Neil Gorsuch, it’s been directed toward Clarence Thomas, and it’s un-American, it’s unconscionable, and I can’t believe we wouldn’t condemn it,” Mr. Kennedy said. “I don’t care how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin, don’t try to pretend this is a sort of technical mistake in this amendment. It’s not complicated.”
“I don’t understand the reluctance to accept the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be a black man, has been the butt of a lot of racist statements. And I don’t understand the reluctance to condemn those,” he added.
Race-Based Decisions
After the high court struck down the use of race-based college admissions, or affirmative action, the end of last month, accusations that Supreme Court actions were partisan came out in full swing. Currently, the majority of the court leans conservative in their reading of the law. But attacks against Justice Thomas were especially pointed.“The worst thing about affirmative action is that it created a Clarence Thomas,” he said, accusing the Justice of benefiting from the program himself, and turning around and denying others the opportunities he has had.
Indeed, much of the criticism against the court’s majority ruling singled out Justice Thomas by name.
During his tenure, Justice Thomas ruled on multiple cases related to affirmative action.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the case 20 years ago that set universities’ standards for affirmative action until the latest ruling, Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, seeking specifics to the educational benefits of racial diversity.
In the latest ruling, he wrote that even with 50 years to develop their arguments, neither Harvard College nor the University of North Carolina could explain these educational benefits. He warned the universities against using arguments that open the door for racial discriminators, the way racial segregation was once made legal.
Justice Thomas’s opinion was a lengthy, 58-page criticism of various arguments in support of “racial metrics,” including those of his colleagues on the court.
Amending the Amendment
The amendment “condemns racial attacks on any government official or person merely for expressing a view that some deem ‘conservative,' recognizes the importance of judging a person on the basis of the merits of his ideas and the content of his character, rather than on the basis of offensive and derogatory racial stereotypes.”Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said derogatory things have been said about other justices on both sides of the political aisle. But Justice Thomas was the only one who had been attacked personally and racially, including by lawmakers and television personalities.
“I support this amendment wholeheartedly, an amendment whose sole purpose is to condemn racist slurs used repeatedly, publicly, and viciously against one Supreme Court justice,” he said.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said it was not just anyone on Twitter lobbing insults, but even senior Democrats in Congress.
“The venom and bigotry directed at Justice Clarence Thomas is qualitatively different from the other eight justices,” he said, reading from the amendment multiple references and quotes of the racist attacks.
Mr. Durbin acquiesced, pointing out that members of the Senate have made public apologies for racial statements, and “we should not compromise on the integrity of that principle, regardless of whether the victim is a Democrat or a Republican, and a Supreme Court justice or not.”
He proposed a further amendment that would include “any current or former Supreme Court justices,” which passed unanimously with bipartisan support, and another amendment to remove the section calling on Justice Department to enforce 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which passed 11-10 along party lines.
