Talk:Clarence Thomas

Never Argued a Case Before the High Courts?

I'm not sure this should be in the article. It's not clear what it means. If it means federal courts, that's true. If a state Supreme Court counts as a high court (as I sure think it would), then it's simply false. He argued lots of cases before the state Supreme Court in Missouri, when he was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, first with criminal appeals and then with revenue and taxation. He may be the most experienced member of the current Court when it comes to the latter sort of cases (which is why he often gets assigned those, since he loves them, and the others consider them boring). 67.246.108.175 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize I'd been logged out. The above comment was by me. Parableman (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The source of that appears to be Toobin, p. 26, "For example, he had never argued a single case in any federal appeals court, much less in the Supreme Court; he had never written a book, an article, or even a legal brief of any consequence." Clarification may be needed. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly formatted footnotes

What's with the oddly formatted footnotes in the article, such as the last two, for example in the Stare decisis section? They don't seem to be formatted properly. Is this intentional or some problem? Nightscream (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed those and the others in the article. The {{sfn}} templates were not being used properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That works, but I'm not convinced the problem was in the way the {{sfn}} template was being used. Those templates have been in use in the article for a long time; I'd like to think one of us would have noticed the odd results both in-line and in the reflist itself. I wonder if possibly the changes made to the template in November may have something to do with the issue. In addition to the odd appearance, the current version generates two links to the supplied URL, one correct (as entered), the other concatenating underscores and additional parameters – including the "display" version of the page number – to the entered URL. Using a URL is supposed to work correctly; if the {{harvnb}} template is used with <ref> </ref> tags wrapped around it like you would do with a standard {{cite}} template, it does work correctly. The problem is, I don't have the knowledge (or the boldness in this instance) to fix the template, and no idea who to ask to look at it. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, thought about the possibility that the template had changed as I agree with you that someone would have noticed it, but I didn't have time to investigate it and just fixed it based on the use of the template in other articles. Two things you can do if you wish: one is to ask someone on the Pump, and the other is to raise the question on the template's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a bit more prominent?

So, Justice Thomas didn't report just under $700k in his wife's income from a conservative think tank. How do we tell the story? Buried in the Personal life section, of course! "In 1971, Thomas married college sweetheart Kathy Grace Ambush. Thomas has a reputation as an affable, good-humored man who is extremely personally popular with his friends and colleagues. Oh and by the way between 2003 and 2007 Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in income earned by his wife from the Heritage Foundation".

This shouldn't be tucked away like that. It should have its own section. Any suggestions where to relocate it? --JaGa^talk 18:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It currently gets a full paragraph of coverage. It doesn't deserve more prominence unless it develops into a bigger story. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The simple fact that he failed to report a huge COI is noteworthy, and it's getting coverage already. I read about this story in the news, came here to learn more, only to find a short blurb inexplicably buried in Personal life. --JaGa^talk 19:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It really is just the opposite. The way this entire project works is completely reversed from that. We take what's in secondary sources and trim it down to a brief summary. You learn more about a subject by going to the secondary sources. If any article has more info that what's in the secondary sources it needs serious work.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Drrll. Minor incident with little ongoing relevance; it may merit a mention, but it's own section? Please. This is just the latest in a long line of attempts by soi-disant progressives to turn this article into a dressed-up attack page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read every secondary source in the world and come here for more. I saw an article that mentioned it and came here for the overview. So, do you also think the bottom of Personal life is the proper place to mention a Supreme Court justice's failure to disclose just under $700k of income from a conservative think tank? --JaGa^talk 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the choices. I find some of the construct of this article a little odd, but if we're not talking major rewrite, I personally wouldn't move it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If we were talking major rewrite I think the career section could be expanded on with some of the info that's currently in judicial philosophy and oral arguements, but without that expansion being done first I wouldn't just pop this paragraph up there.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'Personal life' section may not be the most apropos, but there really isn't a more applicable section and it doesn't deserve its own section. It makes sense that since it is the most recent item in 'Personal life' that it would be at the bottom. BTW, it's been known for a long time that Thomas' wife worked for the Heritage Foundation and it's hardly unique for spouses of federal judges to be in ideological jobs. Circuit Court judge Marjorie Rendell's husband used to be the Pennsylvania governor and Circuit Court judge Stephen Reinhardt wife used to head the Southern California office of the ACLU. Drrll (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was boppin' around on the interwebs today, and came across this article. I read it, and thought, huh, is there anything to this, or is it just an attack piece? So I came here for a balanced overview of the controversy, and found... pretty much nothing. Which was no help at all. I mean, is this really a big deal, or is it something blown out of proportion? I was relying on Wikipedia to present the facts and allow me to make my own decision about the seriousness of his actions, as I'm sure thousands of others have done recently. But instead I get a micro-blurb hidden away in Personal life. It's a story people are interested in, and want to understand. It's been covered in the media. It raises important questions about the actions of a member of the Supreme Court. Even if it isn't a big deal - which I'm completely prepared to accept, once I know all the facts - we should present the facts that explain the situation and allow a reader to figure it out for themselves. --JaGa^talk 23:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems more pertinent to the career section than the personal life section. There's a subsection on "early years", but he's been there since 1991, so a new subsection on current/later years should probably be made, and this could be incorporated in it. My 2 cents anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it where it is, given that it was about his wife's income rather than his. If there are any legal consequences for Justice Thomas, then we can move it. More details are (or can be) available in the wife's Wikipedia article, and in the linked sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the information deserves more prominence, but I also don't think it belongs in the Personal life section. However, I agree with others that there's no better section to use, and the information isn't notable enough to warrant its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't belong in the personal life section, and there's no section to which it ought to be moved, and it doesn't merit its own section, the obvious conclusion is that it ought to be deleted. Any objections (other than Jaga)? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, it could be incorporated into the "First Amendment" section. One of the primary reasons this has been pursued seems to be a claimed/perceived conflict of interest in Citizens United, in which Thomas was part of the 5–4 majority ruling for Citizens United and against McCain–Feingold, and I'm sure a 30-second Google search would turn up plenty of sources making that point. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but they would all be commentator sources. My view is he failed to follow the rules and, in particular, rules that directly or indirectly implicated his wife's activities. I'm not sure how comfortable I feel going beyond that, although without looking at the quality of the sources, I wouldn't foreclose the possibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There's probably some room in witchhunt, too, where it belongs.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon, in response to your comment above about the "obvious conclusion", as well as the even more overstated witch-hunt comment, I object. The news is noteworthy and relevant and should remain. If you like, we can put it in the lead. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As you put it above, it doesn't "belong[ ] in the Personal life section," "there's no better section to use" (the lede is a section), "and the information isn't notable enough to warrant its own section." If it can't stay where it is and it can't go anywhere else, I'm not sure how any conclusion other than deletion follows. Hence, obvious. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll rephrase. The information is sufficiently notable to include in the article. Based on the current sectioning of the article, the Personal life section is the best place to put it. (And I don't think of the lead as a section because it doesn't have a section header, but that's semantics, and my comment was intended to be facetious.)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas's skin color in the lead

An editor removed from the lead the reference to Thomas being the second African American justice, Marshall being the first. Apparently, the justification for the removal is we don't mention that Scalia is white (and, according to the editor, "ditto for the other justices"). I think it should be put back the way it was, and after completing this edit, I intend to do that. First, it's not notable that Scalia is white. It is notable that Thomas is black AND that he is the second black justice in the history of the Supreme Court. We DO note, for example, that Kagan is the fourth female justice in the lead. We also note that Sotomayor is the first Hispanic justice in the lead. So, the editor's justification just doesn't hold water. Second, the reference has been there for years (at least since 2009 - I didn't continue looking back), and before removing something like that, I think it should be discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have to revert. Another editor did it for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're both wrong. Discussion is fine, and there will be no edit-war about this. Is it really necessary to have his race in the opening paragraph? It's covered later in the article. And, we don't get into race and ethnicity in the opening paragraphs of other SCOTUS judges. Thomas isn't even the first African-American in his position. How many African-Americans before we stop putting it in the opening paragraph? How many women? For the first one, fine. But after that, enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "necessary" but it's appropriate. With Kagan, we included it, even though she's already the fourth female justice. Someone asked a similar question about how many is enough with respect to Kagan (I think). I can't give you a precise number, but my sense is that the second black justice in over two hundred years is not the point where we keep it out of the lead. It's rather important.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Cardozo was the second Jewish justice. Not in lead. Edward Douglass White was the second Catholic justice. Not in lead. Felix Frankfurter was the only Austrian-American justice. Not in lead. I just wish we could ease up on emphasizing demographics so much. It's only important for people obsessed with such things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel obsessed, at least not about this. I'll take it up with my therapist. Cardozo and White are good examples for you; Frankfurter is not - very people would care about his Austrian ancestry. Most white justices comes from Europe. Also, the Frankfurter lead is so short it's barely noticeable. Even the Cardozo and White leads are short in comparison to Thomas's. Maybe we should change the Cardozo and White articles. :-) Anyway, I'll let others chime in at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll settle for your personal solemn oath that when the next African-American justice is confirmed, we'll not have it in the lead. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Scalia was the first Italian-American justice and his article doesn't mention that. I don't have any opinion either way on Thomas' article mentioning that he's the second black justice, but like Anythingyouwant, I do find this obsession with demographics a little juvenile, and if Kagan's article says she's the fourth woman, that's just silly and it ought to be fixed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Scalia's article is featured (ooh). I'll now let others chime in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about whether this needs to be in the lead, vs. the body. In favor of the lead, Thomas' race has been a central aspect both in how he has presented himself and in how he has been perceived and discussed by reliable sources. Moreover, it was arguably an "obsession with demographics" that led the Bush White House to nominate Thomas in the first place. But like I said, I can't get too worked up about whether it's discussed in the body vs. the lead. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to remove it from the lead, the body would have to be clearer. At the moment, it's not as squarely stated: "Thomas biographer Scott Douglas Gerber has opined that attacks against Thomas from critics such as Jeffrey Toobin have been unusually vitriolic, which Gerber attributes in part to liberals’ disappointment that Thomas has departed so much from the jurisprudence of the African-American whom he succeeded, Thurgood Marshall." I also agree with MastCell that demographics plays a significant role in the appointment process.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia should be tempered with reason. Scalia being an Italian American of Eurpoean ancestry probably doesn't belong in the lede of his article. Thomas' situation is a little different. Going from slavery to the SCOTUS is a big deal. It's worthy of mention. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Just to note this as a matter of record, it was I who requested temporary semi-protection of this page. IP and brand new account vandalism was out of control. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This level of protection is interesting. I think it would be of benefit to history if Wikipedia could quantify this type of behavior. Especially, in regard to the political sides that take part in vandalism of the topics that are politically charged. I am certain that it is the left that will be shown to be the most mean-spirited. Isn't it interesting how the MSM will heavily cover any right-wing violence -- even the whiff of it -- and yet characterize real filmed violence by union thugs and WTO vandals in a more neutral fashion and with little condemnation. This is because of the bullying nature of left wing advocates. The MSM knows that it will invite a firestorm if they were even-handed. Lkoler (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of articles about liberals are (justly) protected. Vandalism is vandalism. Every editor has the right to hold Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or anyone else they see fit in utter contempt. However, if they are unable to put aside those feelings when working on articles, they need to refrain from editing them. As far as "the left being shown to be the most mean spirited", I don't think that holds water. And even were it to be true, it doesn't seem revelant, because as I said, vandalism is vandalism. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the lion's share of vandalism comes from the left, but that subjective impression may be because the articles on my watchlist are disproportionately weighted toward articles likely to suffer lefty vandalism and away from articles likely to suffer righty vandalism. In any event, my observation is that the vast majority of pure vandalism is best understood as neither right nor left, but IP. Notwithstanding WP:HUMAN (which concedes that 80% of vandalism is from IP accounts), I emphatically support semi-protecting all BLPs—permanently, or at very least, an admin guideline requiring semi-protection to be approved whenever any user requests it at RFP. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I emphatically second that support. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I ask that data be tracked to document this phenomenon and you just assure me that it's nothing to talk about. That's comforting. Aren't you interested in this data? Or are you similarly suspicious as I am that it will lean heavily to the left. Vandalism is vandalism doesn't answer my issue -- it covers it up, it minimizes it, it sets it aside. Why respond in this fashion? Wikipedia is a fantastic experiment. It is a unique contribution to the modern world and I hope it continues for decades.

Let me talk about it this way: PBS and NPR let the leftward drift continue unabated and un-policed. They had a responsibility to the American public to use the startup and continuing funds in a fair way for the benefit of the larger public. This is really a fiduciary responsibility, too. But, my issue is the moral one. NPR got to the point that they were effectively telling people who work for them to lie about this bias.

Wikipedia must have credibility in order to proceed into the future. We need data to prove that. Why are financial statements expected in many aspects of public life but not political agendas (which in NPR's case is very much more important). There must be a way to quantify this -- publishing such things would chasten whoever is doing it and give a tremendous boost to Wikipedia's image. I feel certain that there are very good people in the Wiki higher ups. We don't want the Left (or Right) to come into this organization and intimidate it. Set standards, measure compliance and adjust as necessary. Bias and lying about it is the hobgoblin of modern life. A concerted effort to expose it within any politically affected organization is only the first step to fixing it.Lkoler (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Whom are you asking to track this data? This is a volunteer project; you're as well placed to do this as anyone else. Virtually every edit made here (with rare exceptions) is a matter of public record. Anyone could mine the database, either by hand or using automated tools, to investigate whatever hypothesis they like. Your comments lead me to believe that you'll need to be wary of confirmation bias if you undertake such a project, but nothing is stopping you.

Now, to be a bit more blunt: you need to get off the soapbox and stop using this talk page (and Wikipedia in general) as a platform for your personal ideological views. We get it: you don't like Anita Hill, public broadcasting, the mainstream media, and the left. But this isn't the place to discuss your dislikes. You can blog about these things, or write letters to the editor, or avail yourself of any of the other myriad options for free expression that we all enjoy, but while you're contributing to this particular website please try to keep in mind its guidelines and policies. In particular, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and its talk pages are not forums for general discussion or debate. MastCell ^Talk 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What value is it to the encyclopedia to know whether more vandalism comes from the left or the right? What are we going to do, block editors who display lefty userboxes? What's the practical value to the encyclopedia to engage in that project? We aren't a sociology experiment, and to the extent that WP's edit data can be used as raw material for someone else's sociology experiment, MastCell is right: Go for it! If you want to do it, great. Let me know when you post the paper at SSRN; I'll enjoy reading it. And why, seemingly at random, do you jump on a soapbox about a completely different subject for a paragraph before getting back on topic? I agree with you, as it happens, but what's the relevance? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback -- good points all. The most important of which is that this isn't the place to do this. Regardless, I do appreciate you taking the time to respond. I read the Reliability of Wikepedia page and didn't find the item that I'm interested in (which targets have more vandalism).Lkoler (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is STILL protected in violation of policy. I asked for it to unlock. Merrill Stubing (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think the article is protected? It's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Disbarment complaint

Can this article please reflect news that there is an attempt to have him disbarred? These news articles talk about it. I can't do it as the article is oddly locked down. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• As if to prove the value of semi-protecting the page...- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I still cannot edit this article and the information doesn't appear to have been added. When will this article be unlocked? I thought Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles are protected at Wikipedia if there is sufficient disruption by unregistered users. In this instance, the article is protected until May 7 because of vandalism. As for the substance of your suggestion, anyone can file a complaint against a judge or a lawyer. At this point, the supposed complaint against Thomas is not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope I'm wrong, but I fear the attacks will begin anew the moment this article is unprotected. I'm willing to give it a shot, but based on this article's history, indefinate semi-protection may be in order. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Anita Hill allegations - AGAIN

The entry I have trouble with is: "She sought to emphasize the inappropriate nature of the alleged behavior, rather than focusing on whether it was illegal or not, but said that in her view it was indeed illegal."

Please provide a reference to the statement that she did say it was illegal -- in her testimony before the Senate hearing. It is wrong to put this word into this paragraph and to characterize her testimony with this oddly constructed sentence that seems only to try to prejudice the reader. It should read:

"She sought to emphasize the inappropriate nature of the alleged behavior and specifically avoided the question of its illegality."

It's clear she was doing a drive by insinuation without having to explain more of her own behavior -- as to why she followed Thomas to his next job, for example. My complaint has to do with how it reads in the first sentence above. We have no business in perpetuating this version of events and passing on the insinuation without adding comments by people supporting Thomas who explain this whole despicable attack by Hill. Hill describes behavior that if it were Bill Clinton would further raise him in the eyes of the media, with knowing clucks and stifled mirth. But, with Thomas, we are supposed to be appalled and exhibit high dudgeon.Lkoler (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, a substantial portion of your edits to Wikipedia seem to express personal hostility toward Anita Hill. If it's possible for you to tone that down, it would probably help move things along. I agree that the sentence in question is poorly worded and ambiguous. I think your proposed edit is an improvement, although it could probably be improved even further. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The underlying quote in footnote 52 has the underlying quote. Hill said that in her opinion it was sexual harassment, but that even if it wasn't, it was "behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court." I agree with Lkoler that the sentence in the article body is a problem, but I think the solution is simply to hew more closely to the quote. It currently reads: "Following the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings, where she stated that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature. She sought to emphasize the inappropriate nature of the alleged behavior, rather than focusing on whether it was illegal or not, but said that in her view it was indeed illegal, adding that it might not 'rise to the level' of illegal sexual harassment." Let's change that to "Following the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings. She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature which she felt constituted sexual harassment, or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'"- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable to me. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too, as long as you change the "which" to "that", please.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that which/that is a usage problem I struggle with, but I think which is correct here. The phrase "she felt [Thomas' behavior] constituted sexual harassment, or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court" doesn't restrict or define its predicate (i.e. Thomas' comments); it gives additional information about the predicate, and (so to speak) that is the province of which.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it does restrict comments, but it's on the line. If you remove the clause, the sentence still makes some sense: "She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, or at least 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'" In any event, if you want to use "which", then offset the clause by commas so it reads: "She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, which she felt constituted sexual harassment, or at least to 'behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.'" I bolded the added comma. Regardless of what you decide, I've added a "to" (bolded) for parallelism ("subjected to").--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "to" is that it changes the meaning of the sentence. Hill said that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, characterizing those comments as either sexual harassment or at least behavior unbecoming a Justice. Adding the "to" changes that subtly into a claim that Hill said that Thomas had subjected her to behavior that could be characterized as harassing comments or behavior unbecoming. I realize that's a subtle distinction, but I think it matters.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I therefore removed the comma after harassment so it doesn't read as if behavior is referring to what she was subjected to. The entire which clause therefore characterizes Hill's comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up and making these changes. You have been scrupulously fair. I have been busy lately and not able to watch the to and fro. I'll try to stop myself regarding Hill -- in future. I haven't gone to her Wiki entry because in truth my only desire is to see Justice Thomas's bio in a form that school children get as fair a read on him as possible.Lkoler (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Perception/Fox News Poll Paragraph

I recommend removing the paragraph that begins "In a 2004 Fox Poll.." for the following reasons: - The data is almost 8 years old - One snapshot in his time of his popularity is hardly representative, as poll numbers go up and down all the time, so the number seems meaningless. - The poll undermines itself when 58% of the respondents can't even name a supreme court justice. Clearly the poll respondents are not well-informed enough to rank SC justices.

I'm deleting paragraph unless someone has an objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You removed the 2006 poll info as well. Polls are always snapshots - that doesn't mean they don't mean anything. The respondents' apparent ignorance of the names of justices is disclosed, putting the poll into some perspective. It doesn't necessarily follow that those who ranked were not "well-informed" - that's mostly just your inference. I believe the polling data is worth keeping, particularly in light of the later 2006 poll.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do appreciate the courtesy and thoughtfulness brought to these discussions by the editors. Thanks as always for the logic employed. OK, now my thoughts: The first statement in that paragraph and the poll itself feel awfully partisan to me. It's a Fox News poll that chose the furthest right-leaning judge as the second most admired. Further, if you look at the actual data from that poll, we're talking about 8% of people who said Thomas was most admired. I think at the very least the statement should be reworded to say "8% of respondents view Thomas as the most admired SC justice." While Rassmussen has been roundly criticized for its methodology, I'd be fine leaving it in (though without broader context like a trend line of approval ratings of him vs other justices) I still say it's meaningless. But the first poll? Come on, that's reaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It would really be better if you would wait for consensus before continuing to edit the article. You've now changed the article to replace an accurate description of Thomas's ranking with the 8% data. I don't have a problem with reporting on the 8%, but it's misleading to omit the description because 8% is a relatively small percentage, which would incorrectly lead the reader to infer that he wasn't admired. Let's also leave out your opinions about partisanship, right-leaning, etc. They're not helpful. Unless you want to claim that Fox is not a reliable source, those thinly veiled accusations of bias by the source really don't belong in this discussion. I'm going to put the article back to the way it was, and PLEASE wait for consensus before editing it again. Just so it's clear, although I don't want to put it in now because I want to hear from other editors, I don't have a problem including Thomas's ranking AND including the 8% as it gives the reader a more complete picture to have both.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"thinly veiled accusations of bias" [sigh. I didn't think comments like that were a part of the wikipedia editorial staff's parlance.] All of that aside, it still seems that a single 8 year old poll that barely shows him above the other justices (the next one is 1% below him) is at best irrelevant and at worst included to paint him in a positive light instead of a neutral one. Further, I looked up Sandra Day O'Conner's page, the one who was the MOST admired in that poll, and that fact is not included on her page. I looked at all of the other justices' pages, and none of them have public poll numbers included. Not sure why those things are here on Thomas' page. Curious to hear the opinions of other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Given their status as lifetime appointees, I don't see much relevance in the so-called public image of the justices, and the 59% who couldn't or wouldn't name one of the then-current justices as their favorite seems to support that view. The 2004 poll seems particularly meaningless. It has a ±3% margin of error; after O'Connor, four justices – Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Ginsburg – are grouped in a virtual tie with 8–6–5–5%. That really seems to fall squarely into "who cares" territory. The 2006 poll is slightly more meaningful, but still hasn't been shown to have any effect on Thomas. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

After we hear from others, if the consensus is to remove the poll material, I suggest we rename the section header as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Poll results for other justices are not nearly as relevant as ones about Thomas. With the unequaled media coverage of the phase of his confirmation hearings dealing with the Anita Hill allegations, and what I believe to be unequaled hostility in news and opinion coverage since his confirmation, poll results matter for Thomas. I agree with Fat&Happy that the Fox News poll has dubious value, not because Fox is not a reliable source (which it is), but because of the close results and the margin of error. I don't have a problem removing the Fox poll, but I do in removing the Rasmussen poll. Drrll (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sound logic re Fox poll and margin of error. My only question is why leave the one Rasmussen poll in there? I don't know what 48% favorable, 36% unfavorable means. Is that good? Is that bad? Why? I just don't get the relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that poll has no context. It's not like they do those polls regularly, and they didn't include other justices to compare against. It's just a number floating in space. Like saying my refrigerator has a 61% approval rating. OK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this discussion, it looked like we had consensus to at least remove the Fox Poll. Where did we land with the other poll numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until others weigh in on whether to include the Rasmussen poll. Drrll (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a "Public Perception" section at all? Thomas was approved by the Senate to a lifetime appointment 20 years ago. He doesn't have Nielsen rating, and he won't ever be up for re-election. None of the other Justices has such a section in their article (though Justice Sotomayor does have the distinction of having an "awards and honors" section. That seems even-handed. I'm certain that Thomas has no awards or honors.) Why should anyone take Wikipedia seriously, if it won't be serious about itself?--Paul (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"I'm certain that Thomas has no awards or honors." What exactly does that mean? –CWenger (^ • @) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's sarcasm, sorry. I was pointing out the different treatment that Scalia and Thomas receive on Wikipedia compared to the more liberal Justices. --Paul (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It came across as very insulting to Justice Thomas. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm and irony are sometimes difficult to communicate in on-line text exchanges.--Paul (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, there hasn't been any other Justice who received as much media coverage as he did at the end of his confirmation hearings. And I believe that there hasn't been any other Justice who has received as much hostile news and opinion coverage as Thomas. That puts Thomas in a unique position where "Public perception" is relevant. Drrll (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Harlan Crow

This should be included. Where and how? [1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like about the only one saying that Thomas did something wrong is Deborah Rhode. She is a prominent feminist who works with feminist organizations, has been a long-time Thomas critic, a supporter of Anita Hill, a defender of Bill Clinton's concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by him (including working for Democrats during his impeachment), and a law clerk for Thomas' liberal predecessor, Thurgood Marshall). Hardly an impartial judge of Thomas. Drrll (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

zOMG a feminist who works with feminist organizations doing feminist stuff!11!! You're right, no reason to include her view in the article, even if it is reported prominently by the New York Times. In all seriousness, I don't think you're accurately representing the sources. The New York Times article states:

Legal ethicists differed on whether Justice Thomas’s dealings with Mr. Crow pose a problem under the code. But they agreed that one facet of the relationship was both unusual and important in weighing any ethical implications: Justice Thomas’s role in Mr. Crow’s donation for the museum.

In other words, legal ethicists (plural, not just Rohde) see this as an unusual and notable relationship. Using your logic, one could say that the only one who doesn't think Thomas did anything wrong is Ronald Rotunda, since he's the only one quoted by the Times defending Thomas (incidentally, he's a former Ken Starr staffer and a fellow at the Cato Institute, so he's hardly an impartial judge of Thomas... right?) See how easy it is to inject ideological spin? Let's see if we can stick to accurately representing the content of the source rather than spinning it. MastCell ^Talk 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's getting significant coverage in reliable sources. It can easily rankle, which is why I came here rather than create a section for it that despite my best efforts would have some crying NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If we include any mention of this in the article, it is relevant to note Rhode's history of being hostile to Thomas. It is also relevant to note that it appears that she is the only one definitively saying that he did anything wrong and that this appears to be a one-story controversy (where other sources merely report on the single NYT story). Yes, if Rotunda has a history of praising Thomas, then that should be noted as well. Drrll (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, and just hear me out, we could try to represent the story as reported by reliable sources. Your partisanship is showing in your efforts to spin this into a personal campaign by Rohde. That doesn't appear to reflect reality, nor does it reflect existing sources.

One could just as easily say that Thomas' activities are of concern to legal ethicists, and "only" Ronald Rotunda is defending his actions (insert attempt to discredit Rotunda by association). That would be misleading and improper, of course, but it's exactly what you're doing. Either we convey what reliable sources are saying, or we decide that this is below the notability threshold. Your attempts to spin this along partisan lines are inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There aren't "reliable sources" there is one media outlet, the NYTs that decided to do a hit piece on Thomas, quoting one critic, and other sources picked it up. This has not yet gotten to a "notable" state.--Paul (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that when you look at the Times article, you see a "one-source hit piece". In general, though, news pieces from the New York Times are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. What makes this an exception (besides your personal dislike of the article's content)? MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right that we should stick to the sources about this issue in describing it if we do include it. It is still worth taking into consideration about whether to include this, the issue of the weight of the person saying that what Thomas did was wrong and the weight of apparently a one-story controversy. Rhode clearly does not like Thomas as her support of Anita Hill shows (she participated in a forum with Anita Hill that had a very Hill-sympathetic audience and she included in a book she edited, Women and Leadership, an essay by Hill), her dismissive writing about Thomas not learning the correct lessons from his life experiences in contrast with Thurgood Marshall, and more importantly her participation in a teleconference by the liberal activist group Common Cause that advocated the Department of Justice investigate Thomas for conflict of interest in the Citizens United case. In sticking to the sources, we should not give the impression that this is a widely reported item or that several ethics experts consider what Thomas did wrong. Drrll (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. According to the Times article, ethics experts consider Thomas' relationship with Crow "unusual" and believe that it raises important ethical questions. That stops short of saying that it's "wrong". MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue merits at least a mention in a biographic article. No ethical claims should be made, but we should express the facts attracting attention. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection and alleged ethics violatons

First, why is this page protected? I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Second, why is there no mention of his ethics violations? It is published in reliable news sources, such as Democrats mobilize over Clarence Thomas ethics investigation. Thank you. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Now it's on CNN Clarence Thomas under fire again. 1) Why is the article locked and 2) why is this not on the article? 65.96.60.92 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While I have the technical ability to unprotect the page, I have been heavily involved in editing it and thus would prefer to defer that decision to an uninvolved administrator. I'd suggest going to Requests for protection; find the section of that page entitled "Requests for unprotection" and file a request. An uninvolved admin will review it. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As regards to the content I'd suggest it's premature. We're an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Right now all that's happened is a letter has been sent making a complaint. If and when this turns into a serious and formal inquiry I'd likely support inclusion.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

While I am relatively new to Wikipedia, it seems that the short blurb needs to be expanded. In case you missed it, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are supposed to be complete; blocking an adequate reporting on the DisclosureGate scandal seems spectacularly irresponsible, as Thomas has publicly admitted every fact necessary to constitute a confession of multiple felonies. To wit, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title [and/or] imprisoned not more than 5 years…

According to the Department of Justice, the Section 1001(a) as amended in 1996 (pointedly, after the Ethics in Government Act!) was intended to reach “documents that have most often been the subject of congressional false statement prosecutions, such as vouchers, payroll documents, and Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) financial disclosure forms.” United States Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual 902 (1997) (emphasis added).

To incur criminal liability under Section 1001, all Justice Thomas had to do was knowingly omit a material fact from his annual financial disclosure form. As he has recently amended the forms in question in response to public pressure, he has effectively conceded that the omissions were material. Thomas recently explained that he “inadvertently omitted” the source of his wife’s earned income as required by the Ethics in Government Act, “due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Ariane de Vogue and Devin Dwyer, Justice Clarence Thomas Amends 20 Years of Disclosure Forms With Wife's Employers, ABCNews.com, Jan. 24, 2011.

Problem is, through his conduct, Thomas clearly demonstrated his knowledge of the difference between earned and investment income -- correctly treating the advances on his autobiography as non-investment income. Clarence Thomas, Form AO-10 (Financial Disclosure Rept. for Calendar Year 2007) 2 (May 15, 2008), The instructions are pellucid, and require him to disclose the source of wife Virginia’s non-investment income, but not the amount. Moreover, every American taxpayer is charged with the ability to distinguish between investment and non-investment income. E.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 163(d), 212. It is a simple concept, explained thoroughly in any law school survey course on income taxation. Reading the damned form can’t be that hard.

It would be one thing if Justice Thomas were a day laborer, used to spending his days out in the fields or on construction sites, but Thomas is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, who has even bragged about his familiarity with tax law. In his autobiography, he boasts that he had earned an honors grade in his class on taxation at Yale Law School, My Grandfather's Son at 75, confessed that he was “interested in tax and corporate law,” Id. at 99, and “had bench trials in a number of tax cases.” Id. at 108. Yet, despite his admission of competence in the area of tax law, see, Mo. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1, and his admission by conduct that he understood the difference between investment and non-investment income, Clarence Thomas, Form AO-10 (Financial Disclosure Rept. for Calendar Year 2007) 2 (May 15, 2008), he claimed that this serial oversight was “inadvertent?”

In effect, Thomas invoked the “I am incredibly stupid” defense, which is not only unbecoming of an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, but never seems to work unless you are a federal judge. For instance, in an unpublished Tenth Circuit case—providentially, styled United States v. Thomas—neither the court nor jury were willing to swallow the “incredible stupidity” defense:

For example, Thomas bought a VCR and wide screen television for $5,130; by the time the units reached the final limited partnership, they were carried on the books at 307,800. He bought twenty horses for a total of $12,400; the horses were eventually carried on the books at $3 million. The jury could have found the necessary willfulness and criminal intent on the basis of such evidence alone. The obviously sham nature of these transactions could lead to such an inference.

United States v. Thomas, No. 91-4061, 1993.C10.41489, ¶¶ 97-98 (10th Cir. Feb. 23, 1993) (Versuslaw).

Something more needs to be said about DisclosureGate and more importantly, the large sinecures he receives from conservative activists (including the gift of the Bible of Frederick Douglass, valued at $19,000) Mike McIntire, The Justice and the Magnate, N.Y. Times, Jun. 19, 2011, at A-1. This is a legitimate scandal, and enough hard facts have made it into the public record for an appropriate expansion of the current blurb. As I have an encyclopedic knowledge of the scandal, I'd be willing to attempt it, and suggest that it be broken into three segments: the raw facts of the case, the critics' complaints, and his defenders' position. The normal editing process would precipitate a responsible, accurate, and reasonably complete exposition of the issues, especially in light of MastCell's continuing involvement in the page. Bouldergeist (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bouldergeist, you write: "Thomas has publicly admitted every fact necessary to constitute a confession of multiple felonies". If that is so, then the Department of Justice will ask a grand jury to file charges, then a trial will occur, and Justice Thomas will be convicted. But AFAIK none of that has happened, so let's see if it does happen before assuming and proclaiming guilt. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this was cross-posted to my talk page, I responded there before seeing it here. I'll link to my response: [3], and further discussion should probably be centralized here where all interested parties can readily participate. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Worst ABA rating since 1955

It looks to me like nine Supreme Court nominees after William Brennan (nominated in 1956) received the same "qualified" rating as Thomas.  The "well-qualified" rating was not available, as it was when Thomas was nominated, so it's a bit like apples and oranges.  However, the ABA did make an exception by giving Harrold Carswell a "well-qualified" rating, and then returned to "qualified" ratings with Clement Haynsworth.  So it seems kind of weird to say that Thomas received the lowest rating since 1955, especially considering that Bork received a higher proportion of "not qualified" votes than Thomas received. See here. It appears that O'Connor also did not receive a "well-qualified" rating, nor did Goldberg (though I'm not including them in the "nine" who received the same rating as Thomas since 1955).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't feel qualified to comment, although I'll qualify my comment by saying that assuming all of what Anything says is accurate, I'd take out the material. I certainly wouldn't explain it all - what a quagmire.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I give my qualified endorsement to Bbb23's comment, except for the bit about him not being qualified.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. We have a reliable source - Merida & Fletcher - directly supporting our text (they write that the ABA gave Thomas "the lowest rating of any high court nominee since 1955"). We're proposing to replace that nearly direct quotation from a reliable source with original synthesis based on one editor's extrapolation, which I think is a mistake. MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not proposed to replace the material in question with anything whatsoever, much less with original synthesis. Where did you develop the notion that I ever proposed such a thing, MastCell? I didn't say it, I didn't think it, and I don't think you're really being accurate about it. Please try not to misrepresent the views of other editors.

What I do suggest now is that this Wikipedia article should say the following:

"The American Bar Association (ABA) rated Thomas as qualified; twelve members of the ABA committee voted 'qualified', one abstained, and the other two voted 'not qualified'."[1]

[1]Abraham, Henry. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments From Washington to Bush II (Rowman and Littlefield 2007)."

That's it. The cited source is far superior to the one we use now, it is an in-depth analysis of ABA ratings, compared to a fleeting footnote tucked away in the book by Merida & Fletcher that does not indicate any basis for their statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)