What do you think?
Rate this book
Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution
When Clarence Thomas joined the Supreme Court in 1991, he found with dismay that it was interpreting a very different Constitution from the one the framers had written—the one that had established a federal government manned by the people’s own elected representatives, charged with protecting citizens’ inborn rights while leaving them free to work out their individual happiness themselves, in their families, communities, and states. He found that his predecessors on the Court were complicit in the first step of this transformation, when in the 1870s they defanged the Civil War amendments intended to give full citizenship to his fellow black Americans. In the next generation, Woodrow Wilson, dismissing the framers and their work as obsolete, set out to replace laws made by the people’s representatives with rules made by highly educated, modern, supposedly nonpartisan “experts,” an idea Franklin Roosevelt supersized in the New Deal agencies that he acknowledged had no constitutional warrant. Then, under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1950s and 1960s, the Nine set about realizing Wilson’s dream of a Supreme Court sitting as a permanent constitutional convention, conjuring up laws out of smoke and mirrors and justifying them as expressions of the spirit of the age. But Thomas, who joined the Court after eight years running one of the myriad administrative agencies that the Great Society had piled on top of FDR’s batch, had deep misgivings about the new governmental order. He shared the framers’ vision of free, self-governing citizens forging their own fate. And from his own experience growing up in segregated Savannah, flirting with and rejecting black radicalism at college, and running an agency that supposedly advanced equality, he doubted that unelected experts and justices really did understand the moral arc of the universe better than the people themselves, or that the rules and rulings they issued made lives better rather than worse. So in the hundreds of opinions he has written in more than a quarter century on the Court—the most important of them explained in these pages in clear, non-lawyerly language—he has questioned the constitutional underpinnings of the new order and tried to restore the limited, self-governing original one, as more legitimate, more just, and more free than the one that grew up in its stead. The Court now seems set to move down the trail he blazed. A free, self-governing nation needs independent-minded, self-reliant citizens, and Thomas’s biography, vividly recounted here, produced just the kind of character that the founders assumed would always mark Americans. America’s future depends on the power of its culture and institutions to form ever more citizens of this stamp.
158 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 7, 2019
108 people are currently reading
313 people want to read
About the author
Myron Magnet
16 books19 followersMyron Magnet, editor-at-large of City Journal, is the author of The Dream and the Nightmare and Dickens and the Social Order. He was awarded a National Humanities Medal by President George W. Bush in 2008. He lives in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
August 20, 2020
This book is a brief introduction into the opinions and beliefs of Clarence Thomas about the fourth amendment and the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. This is not a biography of Thomas.
In addition to the discussion of the two amendments, Magnet spent some time reviewing Thomas ‘opinion on McDonald v City of Chicago and what brought it about in Slaughter-House Cases and the United States v Cruikshank. This was about the 14th amendment. Magnet quotes Thomas as saying “living under Jim Crow taught me to think about the use and misuse of government powers”. Magnet points out that with the death of Justice Anton Scalia, Thomas is coming into his own with his more stringent view of originalism. Note: this is not an unbiased book. I was left with the impression that conservatives are correct and liberals cause all the problems. I do not like this when either side does it. The author should leave politics outside of an academic discussion. Overall, this was an interesting book and worth the read to understand Thomas and his far-right viewpoint on the Court.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is five hours and thirty-four minutes. John McLain does an excellent job narrating the book. McLain has won several Earphone Awards and was nominated in 2012 for the Audie Award.
In addition to the discussion of the two amendments, Magnet spent some time reviewing Thomas ‘opinion on McDonald v City of Chicago and what brought it about in Slaughter-House Cases and the United States v Cruikshank. This was about the 14th amendment. Magnet quotes Thomas as saying “living under Jim Crow taught me to think about the use and misuse of government powers”. Magnet points out that with the death of Justice Anton Scalia, Thomas is coming into his own with his more stringent view of originalism. Note: this is not an unbiased book. I was left with the impression that conservatives are correct and liberals cause all the problems. I do not like this when either side does it. The author should leave politics outside of an academic discussion. Overall, this was an interesting book and worth the read to understand Thomas and his far-right viewpoint on the Court.
I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book is five hours and thirty-four minutes. John McLain does an excellent job narrating the book. McLain has won several Earphone Awards and was nominated in 2012 for the Audie Award.
March 8, 2021
A fascinating account of a great American and Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.
February 5, 2020
An Excellent Study in Character
During my law school days, I would often point out that - for all that he did good and all that he is venerated by conservatives - that it was Justice Thomas, and not Justice Scalia whose jurisprudence was pointing a path towards the future. This book provides an excellent sketch as to the character of Justice Thomas and how his form of Originalism points the way towards a radical break with the errors of recent decades and a return to the true meaning of the constitution.
During my law school days, I would often point out that - for all that he did good and all that he is venerated by conservatives - that it was Justice Thomas, and not Justice Scalia whose jurisprudence was pointing a path towards the future. This book provides an excellent sketch as to the character of Justice Thomas and how his form of Originalism points the way towards a radical break with the errors of recent decades and a return to the true meaning of the constitution.
June 18, 2019
Great book, well researched and full of some powerful insights.
This book was written by a Clarence Thomas biographer and the author is able to support the Justice’s position in several controversial decisions with relevant history details.
If you want to explore the collapse of the separation of powers from Woodrow Wilson to the present, this is an invaluable resource. That 2.6 million people are employed by our government (with 16% higher salaries and 48% higher benefits that their private sector counterparts) and have the power to legislate, adjudicate and punish upsets you, you will find this book worth your while.
This book was written by a Clarence Thomas biographer and the author is able to support the Justice’s position in several controversial decisions with relevant history details.
If you want to explore the collapse of the separation of powers from Woodrow Wilson to the present, this is an invaluable resource. That 2.6 million people are employed by our government (with 16% higher salaries and 48% higher benefits that their private sector counterparts) and have the power to legislate, adjudicate and punish upsets you, you will find this book worth your while.
February 18, 2020
Fascinating look at Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court.
Quotes:
“(Clarence Thomas) read a review of Thomas Sowell’s Race and Economics, which reassured him that he and his grandfather weren’t the only African Americans to believe that black advancement required self-reliance, education, work skills, and pride in achievement- all subverted, Sowell argued, by job quotas, charity subsidies, and preferential treatment. That recognition meant giving up the illusion ‘that whites, having caused our problems, should be responsible for solving them instantly,’ Thomas realized. On the contrary, “blacks could never hope to improve their lives until they took responsibility for them.’” -p. 21
“Wilson concocted and legitimized the magic elixir of judicial constitution-making and rule by administrative agencies, but Franklin D. Roosevelt employed it like an alchemist to transmute the American political system into a full-blown administrative state” -p. 47
“That’s the trouble with the enlightened despotism Woodrow Wilson admired: the despotism outlasts the enlightenment-- as the founders could have told him.” -p. 52
FDR said “‘I intended to be one of the governing class.’ That’s the true voice of ‘Progressivism’ speaking. As the founders often cautioned, a self-governing republic doesn’t have a governing class. Part of America’s current predicament is that it now has a permanent, enelected one, unanswerable to the people.” -p. 55
“Equally destructive, the doctrine of affirmative action in matters involving race (and later sex) distorted college admissions and employer hiring decisions to the point where ‘merit’ is now deemed a racist, sexist construct that must hang its head in shame before the far nobler ideal of ‘diversity,’ an idea that would have framer Alexander Hamilton-- an illegitimate orphan from the West Indies, whose merit raised him to Treasury secretary and who tried to build into the early republic the means for other to follow in his footsteps-- spinning in his grave” -p. 58
“Busing, affirmative action, and abortion are but the three most glaring areas in which the justices have made law from the bench, with no constitutional license to do so.” -p. 60
“..a handmaiden of judicial policy-making: judges tinker with the precedents until ‘they get what they want, and then they start yelling stare decisis, as though that is supposed to stop you,’ Thomas said.” -p. 62
“Thomas held that there’s no moral or constitutional difference ‘between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law.’ Discrimination, whether ill or well intentioned, subverts the core American principle that all men are created equal… How can such discrimination fail to prompt hurtful feelings of superiority or resentment in the majority and dependence and a sense of entitlement among minorities?” -pp. 76-7
“‘The majority of blacks are admitted to the Law School because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving.’ Moreover, the taint follows the deserving no matter how high they ascend and how much they achieve, Thomas says, as he well knows.” -p. 80
“It’s a strange conception of liberty when we argue over the right to kill our babies.” -p. 107
“It’s that inner capitulation, the refusal to accept or assign personal responsibility for what the individual makes of the liberty that America offers, and thus to devalue the liberty itself, that Thomas despises from the depths of his being.” -p. 126
“Individuals are victims of circumstance, says President Obama, not masters of them? Tell that to the colonists who hewed America out of wilderness and fought a war to be free to form a government by reason and reflection, not accident or force. Tell it to Clarence Thomas, who made himself what he is through all the sacrifice, all the long hours of preparation, all the loneliness that came with being ‘the integrator,’ the first and only… In our age of enraged shrinking violets, in which hypersensitivity to imagined slights alternates with rage against any nonconformity to orthodoxy, Clarence Thomas is one of a handful of honest and brave iconoclasts who love liberty, especially the freedom to think for oneself.” -p. 133
Quotes:
“(Clarence Thomas) read a review of Thomas Sowell’s Race and Economics, which reassured him that he and his grandfather weren’t the only African Americans to believe that black advancement required self-reliance, education, work skills, and pride in achievement- all subverted, Sowell argued, by job quotas, charity subsidies, and preferential treatment. That recognition meant giving up the illusion ‘that whites, having caused our problems, should be responsible for solving them instantly,’ Thomas realized. On the contrary, “blacks could never hope to improve their lives until they took responsibility for them.’” -p. 21
“Wilson concocted and legitimized the magic elixir of judicial constitution-making and rule by administrative agencies, but Franklin D. Roosevelt employed it like an alchemist to transmute the American political system into a full-blown administrative state” -p. 47
“That’s the trouble with the enlightened despotism Woodrow Wilson admired: the despotism outlasts the enlightenment-- as the founders could have told him.” -p. 52
FDR said “‘I intended to be one of the governing class.’ That’s the true voice of ‘Progressivism’ speaking. As the founders often cautioned, a self-governing republic doesn’t have a governing class. Part of America’s current predicament is that it now has a permanent, enelected one, unanswerable to the people.” -p. 55
“Equally destructive, the doctrine of affirmative action in matters involving race (and later sex) distorted college admissions and employer hiring decisions to the point where ‘merit’ is now deemed a racist, sexist construct that must hang its head in shame before the far nobler ideal of ‘diversity,’ an idea that would have framer Alexander Hamilton-- an illegitimate orphan from the West Indies, whose merit raised him to Treasury secretary and who tried to build into the early republic the means for other to follow in his footsteps-- spinning in his grave” -p. 58
“Busing, affirmative action, and abortion are but the three most glaring areas in which the justices have made law from the bench, with no constitutional license to do so.” -p. 60
“..a handmaiden of judicial policy-making: judges tinker with the precedents until ‘they get what they want, and then they start yelling stare decisis, as though that is supposed to stop you,’ Thomas said.” -p. 62
“Thomas held that there’s no moral or constitutional difference ‘between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law.’ Discrimination, whether ill or well intentioned, subverts the core American principle that all men are created equal… How can such discrimination fail to prompt hurtful feelings of superiority or resentment in the majority and dependence and a sense of entitlement among minorities?” -pp. 76-7
“‘The majority of blacks are admitted to the Law School because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving.’ Moreover, the taint follows the deserving no matter how high they ascend and how much they achieve, Thomas says, as he well knows.” -p. 80
“It’s a strange conception of liberty when we argue over the right to kill our babies.” -p. 107
“It’s that inner capitulation, the refusal to accept or assign personal responsibility for what the individual makes of the liberty that America offers, and thus to devalue the liberty itself, that Thomas despises from the depths of his being.” -p. 126
“Individuals are victims of circumstance, says President Obama, not masters of them? Tell that to the colonists who hewed America out of wilderness and fought a war to be free to form a government by reason and reflection, not accident or force. Tell it to Clarence Thomas, who made himself what he is through all the sacrifice, all the long hours of preparation, all the loneliness that came with being ‘the integrator,’ the first and only… In our age of enraged shrinking violets, in which hypersensitivity to imagined slights alternates with rage against any nonconformity to orthodoxy, Clarence Thomas is one of a handful of honest and brave iconoclasts who love liberty, especially the freedom to think for oneself.” -p. 133
December 27, 2019
Not so much a book on Justice Thomas as a book on the Constitution with Thomas as a lens. Still, a short but worthwhile read about how the power of our Constitution has eroded through Supreme Court activity during three key periods in history and how Justice Thomas is using his judicial opinions to stand against that wave and set the stage for successors to roll back.
There were a few points where it felt like the author had his soapbox out. Though given the nature of the book, I think it fit. It just meant that I needed to recall that it’s not straight biography or history but more a book of analysis.
There were a few points where it felt like the author had his soapbox out. Though given the nature of the book, I think it fit. It just meant that I needed to recall that it’s not straight biography or history but more a book of analysis.
June 16, 2020
Smart author and subject.
Thought provoking. Makes you think and question what has already be taken away already. Both very intelligent guys. Worth reading more than once.
Thought provoking. Makes you think and question what has already be taken away already. Both very intelligent guys. Worth reading more than once.
November 18, 2019
To preface this, I am not a political or historical expert by any means. I hardly know anything about law. My understanding of the Constitution is fairly minimal and I do not follow (or even understand sometimes) the rulings of the Supreme Court. That being said, I found the content of this book to be incredible when it comes to Clarence Thomas.
First I’ll start off with the bad: the punctuation and grammar/vocab of this book is atrocious. I cannot even believe this got past the first round of edits. Even if everything is perfectly correct in this book when it comes to commas, prepositional phrases, etc., I can most certainly assure you it reads like absolute garbage a lot of the time. The author could have easily broken up sentences, but instead created these (pseudo) run-on sentences that just detract from the point of the text. I cannot tell you enough how terrible this was to read at times. I would say every other page at a minimum this occurred to a frustrating degree.
Now the good stuff. The book (without me doing any follow up research) did a good job at covering the key points of Clarence Thomas’s life (both personally and professionally). The book first started off with what is wrong with the Supreme Court currently. It then transitioned into who Clarence Thomas was growing up (which is definitely necessary in order to determine why he acts/thinks the way he does today). After that, it talks about “what went wrong” and how the courts become so “polarized” as they are today. It did a very good job at explaining where this whole “living Constitution” concept came from and when the courts became “writers of law” instead of Congress [it started with Woodrow Wilson and then the issues became even worse under FDR and the New Deal]. After that, the author moved on to explain how Clarence “ruled” in the Supreme Court. He explained particular dissents and concurrences that mark his fundamental beliefs when it comes to judicial review. In the end, the author makes clear that Clarence is an originalist and does not believe in this “living Constitution” that constantly transforms with time. He doesn’t believe this because he sees this as judges inserting their own viewpoints into the text and this leads to unelected judges (that serve lifetimes) essentially writing laws that they do not (and should not) have the power to write. He sees the court’s role as interpreting the text as the founders initially wrote it and believes that even though it is very old and certain things have changed (we have computers, phones, new regulations), it still applies nicely in this day and age. Finally, the book wraps up with a “going forward” with Clarence and the courts, how recent court cases have been decided, and how Clarence wishes to push the courts back into its original role as “interpreters of law” and not “writers of law”.
After reading this book I have certainly become fascinated with Clarence Thomas. The fact that he is the 2nd black man appointed to the Supreme Court (after Thurgood Marshall), is against affirmative action (and any other “assistance” to try and “make up for problems slavery caused”, his originalist beliefs, his false allegations of sexual misconduct during his appointment hearings, and his life growing up, made me want to learn even more about him. I thought this book did a great job at getting people interested in the man (both personally and professionally). I would recommend this book to anyone. It can be read within a day or two if you dedicate some time (I finished it on a weekend). I’m definitely going to read more books on Clarence Thomas because I read this book!!
First I’ll start off with the bad: the punctuation and grammar/vocab of this book is atrocious. I cannot even believe this got past the first round of edits. Even if everything is perfectly correct in this book when it comes to commas, prepositional phrases, etc., I can most certainly assure you it reads like absolute garbage a lot of the time. The author could have easily broken up sentences, but instead created these (pseudo) run-on sentences that just detract from the point of the text. I cannot tell you enough how terrible this was to read at times. I would say every other page at a minimum this occurred to a frustrating degree.
Now the good stuff. The book (without me doing any follow up research) did a good job at covering the key points of Clarence Thomas’s life (both personally and professionally). The book first started off with what is wrong with the Supreme Court currently. It then transitioned into who Clarence Thomas was growing up (which is definitely necessary in order to determine why he acts/thinks the way he does today). After that, it talks about “what went wrong” and how the courts become so “polarized” as they are today. It did a very good job at explaining where this whole “living Constitution” concept came from and when the courts became “writers of law” instead of Congress [it started with Woodrow Wilson and then the issues became even worse under FDR and the New Deal]. After that, the author moved on to explain how Clarence “ruled” in the Supreme Court. He explained particular dissents and concurrences that mark his fundamental beliefs when it comes to judicial review. In the end, the author makes clear that Clarence is an originalist and does not believe in this “living Constitution” that constantly transforms with time. He doesn’t believe this because he sees this as judges inserting their own viewpoints into the text and this leads to unelected judges (that serve lifetimes) essentially writing laws that they do not (and should not) have the power to write. He sees the court’s role as interpreting the text as the founders initially wrote it and believes that even though it is very old and certain things have changed (we have computers, phones, new regulations), it still applies nicely in this day and age. Finally, the book wraps up with a “going forward” with Clarence and the courts, how recent court cases have been decided, and how Clarence wishes to push the courts back into its original role as “interpreters of law” and not “writers of law”.
After reading this book I have certainly become fascinated with Clarence Thomas. The fact that he is the 2nd black man appointed to the Supreme Court (after Thurgood Marshall), is against affirmative action (and any other “assistance” to try and “make up for problems slavery caused”, his originalist beliefs, his false allegations of sexual misconduct during his appointment hearings, and his life growing up, made me want to learn even more about him. I thought this book did a great job at getting people interested in the man (both personally and professionally). I would recommend this book to anyone. It can be read within a day or two if you dedicate some time (I finished it on a weekend). I’m definitely going to read more books on Clarence Thomas because I read this book!!
July 24, 2020
Too politically biased for me.
March 6, 2020
Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution by Myron Magnet presents Justice Clarence Thomas' character development from growing up in segregated Savannah, joining in the black radicalism at college before rejecting it, and running an agency to advance equality. Greatly influenced by the philosophies of his father and particularly his grandfather, he began to doubt the ability of appointed, unelected experts and justices had a better understanding of American values and morality than the people themselves. In that sense he has emerged as a strong conservative voice for traditional American values and as an originalist when it comes to reading and interpreting the US Constitution. The author states that Thomas does believe that many of the "rights" some of the more liberal interpretors of the Constitution claim are granted by the Constitution are found there. He believes that the way to change the US Constitution legally would be through the means of a Constitutional Convention and passage of new amendments to the Constitution, not having the judicial branch "finding" them through contorted interpretations. Thomas' appointment as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court was very contentious mainly because of what he represents: an intelligent conservative black...liberals' worst nightmare. The author does include many of Justice Thomas' most important rulings and opinions both majority and dissenting. This is a great read for anyone wanting to gain a better understanding of what our Constitution is and is not as well as what it means to hold the core values that Americans have had since our founding.
April 7, 2020
Myron Magnet pulls no punches in this short, dense, yet readable description of Clarence Thomas' judicial philosophy. The book is divided into only five chapters, telling about Thomas' early life, his legal education and the formation of his philosophy, and his decisions - mostly dissents and concurrences. As an originalist, Thomas holds that the justice has a first allegiance to the words of the Constitution and their understood meaning at the time. Stare Decisis applies only to correct decisions. He has sometimes cited dictionaries from the late 1700s to show what the Framers meant in the words that they selected for the Constitution. One of Magnet's main points seems obvious but had eluded me even as a Civics teacher: many of our regulatory agencies in the Executive Branch are clearly unconstitutional because they exercise judicial and legislative powers. This book also sheds excellent light on some cases I have taught, including the Cruikshank and Slaughterhouse cases, and Thomas' ultimate repudiation of them in his McDonald vs. Chicago opinion. In his final chapter, Magnet contrast's Thomas' attitude toward success with that expressed by President Obama in his famous, "you didn't build that," speech. Raised by his hard-working grandfather, Thomas had a better role model than did Obama. This is an excellent companion piece to Thomas' memoir, My Grandfather's Son because the memoir ends with his confirmation to the Supreme Court and most of this book explains his opinions since his appointment.
December 18, 2019
This book is an excellent interweaving of Thomas' biographical background, the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence and where it has gone astray, and Thomas' own judicial philosophy. Magnet covers an impressive amount of material in only five chapters. He is pessimistic about our constitutional order and our chances at preserving it, yet he pleads for us to heed Thomas' warnings and to follow his guidance.
Myron's skewering of past idiocy from the high bench is enjoyable, but unfortunately those rulings are not less potent just because they are dumb. He claims that Thomas is writing for posterity, but I'm sure he'd like to see some actual improvement sooner or later. It remains to be seen where the present court might be steering the ship. He is rightly dismissive of precedent when it is wrong, but by whose standards? He elides over the benefits of stare decisis, even if it is not the be-all-and-end-all that certain Democrat members of the judiciary committee want it to be (when it serves their ends).
In sum, an enlightening, if discouraging, look at one of America's most important thinkers today.
Myron's skewering of past idiocy from the high bench is enjoyable, but unfortunately those rulings are not less potent just because they are dumb. He claims that Thomas is writing for posterity, but I'm sure he'd like to see some actual improvement sooner or later. It remains to be seen where the present court might be steering the ship. He is rightly dismissive of precedent when it is wrong, but by whose standards? He elides over the benefits of stare decisis, even if it is not the be-all-and-end-all that certain Democrat members of the judiciary committee want it to be (when it serves their ends).
In sum, an enlightening, if discouraging, look at one of America's most important thinkers today.
November 18, 2019
Love that Justice Thomas' views are being presented to a popular audience. I wish the tone wasn't so haughty as it more unlikely to persuade a moderate or liberal reader.
February 27, 2020
history and the long view, clerk foundation study
December 13, 2020
This would be an excellent book for anyone considering law school and/or politics. Only reason I didn’t give it a higher rating is that got a little to much into the weeds on some specific cases … for me, probably not for many others.
Clarence Thomas is a fascinating person, growing up as a sharecropper’s son in segregated South Carolina. Then to achieve an appointment to Supreme Court. His independent and originalist way of thinking about the constitution, especially as an African American, has been costly on his reputation among the elite Blacks. But has also earned him great respect among many other groups.
This is not a biography, but an analysis of ways the courts, especially Supreme Court, has evolved over the past 100 years or so, from the perspective of Clarence Thomas … the the author’s use of Thomas’s written opinions over his many years on the court. It was truly heartbreaking at times to learn or relearn the ways in which some Supreme Court decisions have been so out of sync with our nation’s founders and injurious to so so many.
Elections have consequences.
Causes me to want to read his autobiography,
My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir.
ps: Only about 170 pages or 5.5 hours (audiobook).
Clarence Thomas is a fascinating person, growing up as a sharecropper’s son in segregated South Carolina. Then to achieve an appointment to Supreme Court. His independent and originalist way of thinking about the constitution, especially as an African American, has been costly on his reputation among the elite Blacks. But has also earned him great respect among many other groups.
This is not a biography, but an analysis of ways the courts, especially Supreme Court, has evolved over the past 100 years or so, from the perspective of Clarence Thomas … the the author’s use of Thomas’s written opinions over his many years on the court. It was truly heartbreaking at times to learn or relearn the ways in which some Supreme Court decisions have been so out of sync with our nation’s founders and injurious to so so many.
Elections have consequences.
Causes me to want to read his autobiography,
My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir.
ps: Only about 170 pages or 5.5 hours (audiobook).
October 12, 2020
The writing style was a little off-putting at times but the content and presentation of historical facts were excellent.
December 30, 2021
"It was intoxicating to act upon one's rage, to wear it on one's shoulder, to be defined by it, yet ultimately it was destructive, and I knew it. So in the spring of 1970 in a nihilistic fog, I prayed that I be relieved of the anger and the animosity that ate at my soul...I had to make a fundamental choice. Do I believe in the principles of this country, or not? After such angst, I concluded that I did."- Clarence Thomas
This is a brief look at Clarence Thomas, his upbringing, and his journey, not only to the Supreme Court but also to his philosophical and legal/judicial views. The book zeros in on his opinions on the fourth and fourteenth amendments. I especially enjoyed it when the author compared the different upbringings of Thomas and former President Barak Obama, as well as their respective worldviews and philosophies on race and government. If you enjoyed this book, check out Thomas' autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son."
This is a brief look at Clarence Thomas, his upbringing, and his journey, not only to the Supreme Court but also to his philosophical and legal/judicial views. The book zeros in on his opinions on the fourth and fourteenth amendments. I especially enjoyed it when the author compared the different upbringings of Thomas and former President Barak Obama, as well as their respective worldviews and philosophies on race and government. If you enjoyed this book, check out Thomas' autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son."
April 26, 2020
Focused more on the history of the Supreme Court than on the life of Clarence Thomas, chapters of this book are worth reading for their alarming picture of the Court's increasing tendency to legislate from the bench, and the gradual - yet terrible - changes its decisions have wrought upon real Americans. However, this book is unlikely to sway a person who is not already sympathetic to a conservative view of the Constitution, the Court, and American law in general. It appears to be written by a conservative, for conservatives - providing fascinating, if densely worded, historical facts, and an inspiring summary of Thomas' growth - but inaccessible to a less-informed or left-leaning reader.
June 18, 2020
Loved this book. I gave it 4 stars in lieu of 5 because the middle had a lot to do w court cases which were interesting but really a bit more difficult as I am not an attorney. Worth a read from all to see how sadly we have abused our constitution from Abraham Lincoln to now, to the point that we have strayed from the founding fathers intention of freedom and liberty.
June 29, 2019
It has been long time since I read such a powerful book. The book is not one that you can read quickly. You will need to stop and think about the passage you just read. This book will make you think about how the government operates and what the Constituion means. I highly recommend this book.
August 10, 2019
While the author has set forth a very interesting task for himself, he did not accomplish the task as well as one might have desired. I am sure he is a fine long-form journalist, Mr. Magnet wanders into tangents and rhetoric rather then allowing the history to carry the story.
September 6, 2019
This book is excellent in telling Clarence Thomas story and his judicial philosophy. Clarence Thomas is a great man. Where are the conservatives in the movie industry? His life story would make and excellent movie.
June 30, 2023
Myron Magnet uses the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas to show the ways the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Constitution and how Justice Thomas believes the errors should be rectified. Magnet identifies three specific items which endanger our republic: the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, the rise of the administrative state, and the doctrine of a "living" Constitution.
Magnet asks the question, "Who killed the Constitution?" (33) It begins with the 14th Amendment. Originally passed to force states to recognize the rights of citizens previously only recognized by the federal government, the Supreme Court quickly began denigrating the very foundation of the law. In the 1873 Slaughter House cases, the Court rightfully asserted that the 14th Amendment gave the rights of citizens to blacks, but as far as the "privileges an immunities" guaranteed, those were highly limited. Rather than restate the clear meaning of the text written to address a clear problem of states not respecting the rights of black people, the Court held that the 14th Amendment only extended the rights of what was to be found exclusively in the federal domain: right to travel on interstate waterways and not be subject to ex post facto laws. This original misreading bears fruit to this day. Subsequent cases continued to let states off the hook for failing to protect the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, leading inexorably to Plessy v. Ferguson and the "separate but equal" doctrine.
This judicial mockery of the clear will of the people played right into President Wilson's doctrine of a "living" Constitution. Frustrated at the roadblocks presented by the "Newtonian" Constitution of the Founders' design with its checks and balances, Wilson appealed to a "Darwinian" Constitution: one that every grows and evolves. Franklin Delano Roosevelt elevated this idea into a full-blown administrative state designed to regulate and dictate all levels of society. Initially rebuffed by a Court committed to a more proper understanding of the division of power, the recalcitrant court was threatened with court-packing and the judges switched sides.
The idea that the government was no longer one of limited and enumerated powers found its apex in the mid-20th century. It begins with the Warren court and Brown v. Board of Education. Under the Constitution, the federal government had no role in education, but Justice Earl Warren, using the 14th Amendment as a pretext, found that its "equal protection" clause demanded desecrated schools. While this result is highly laudable, it created a "right" with no prior recognition. Rather than appealing to the clear language of the "privileges and immunities" guaranteed to all citizens, Warren sidestepped overturning Plessy, and invoked "equal protection" instead. In an ironic turn of events, future courts would use this same language, designed to make the government color-blind in regards to race, to advance race-based policies like Affirmative Action. It also allowed future courts to find additional "rights," nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, as they saw fit. Eventually rights would be found in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Constitution, forming a right to privacy, which was then interpreted to include a right to abortion.
Enter Justice Thomas:
"The Constitution means not what the Court says it does, but what the delegates at Philadelphia and at the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean... We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution." (61)
Thomas believed the Constitution is the ultimate stare decisis, or prior decision. It makes no sense, in his opinion, to honor prior wrongly decided cases. As C.S. Lewis points out, if you find yourself on the wrong road, the most progressive thing to do is to turn around and go back. Thomas would agree.
"[T]o describe [Thomas'] fully mature method of constitutional interpretation more precisely: he begins with the plain command of the constitutional text or amendment in question, locates it in all the concrete complexity of its historical context, traces the historical process by which the command got distorted from its original meaning, explains the real-world consequences of that distortion, and points out how the Court can repair the damage going forward. His goal is a return to the framers' vision, aimed at protecting the liberty he cherishes as dearly as they did." (72)
Magnet asks the question, "Who killed the Constitution?" (33) It begins with the 14th Amendment. Originally passed to force states to recognize the rights of citizens previously only recognized by the federal government, the Supreme Court quickly began denigrating the very foundation of the law. In the 1873 Slaughter House cases, the Court rightfully asserted that the 14th Amendment gave the rights of citizens to blacks, but as far as the "privileges an immunities" guaranteed, those were highly limited. Rather than restate the clear meaning of the text written to address a clear problem of states not respecting the rights of black people, the Court held that the 14th Amendment only extended the rights of what was to be found exclusively in the federal domain: right to travel on interstate waterways and not be subject to ex post facto laws. This original misreading bears fruit to this day. Subsequent cases continued to let states off the hook for failing to protect the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, leading inexorably to Plessy v. Ferguson and the "separate but equal" doctrine.
This judicial mockery of the clear will of the people played right into President Wilson's doctrine of a "living" Constitution. Frustrated at the roadblocks presented by the "Newtonian" Constitution of the Founders' design with its checks and balances, Wilson appealed to a "Darwinian" Constitution: one that every grows and evolves. Franklin Delano Roosevelt elevated this idea into a full-blown administrative state designed to regulate and dictate all levels of society. Initially rebuffed by a Court committed to a more proper understanding of the division of power, the recalcitrant court was threatened with court-packing and the judges switched sides.
The idea that the government was no longer one of limited and enumerated powers found its apex in the mid-20th century. It begins with the Warren court and Brown v. Board of Education. Under the Constitution, the federal government had no role in education, but Justice Earl Warren, using the 14th Amendment as a pretext, found that its "equal protection" clause demanded desecrated schools. While this result is highly laudable, it created a "right" with no prior recognition. Rather than appealing to the clear language of the "privileges and immunities" guaranteed to all citizens, Warren sidestepped overturning Plessy, and invoked "equal protection" instead. In an ironic turn of events, future courts would use this same language, designed to make the government color-blind in regards to race, to advance race-based policies like Affirmative Action. It also allowed future courts to find additional "rights," nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, as they saw fit. Eventually rights would be found in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the Constitution, forming a right to privacy, which was then interpreted to include a right to abortion.
Enter Justice Thomas:
"The Constitution means not what the Court says it does, but what the delegates at Philadelphia and at the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean... We as a nation adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning that does not change. Otherwise we would have adopted the British approach of an unwritten, evolving constitution." (61)
Thomas believed the Constitution is the ultimate stare decisis, or prior decision. It makes no sense, in his opinion, to honor prior wrongly decided cases. As C.S. Lewis points out, if you find yourself on the wrong road, the most progressive thing to do is to turn around and go back. Thomas would agree.
"[T]o describe [Thomas'] fully mature method of constitutional interpretation more precisely: he begins with the plain command of the constitutional text or amendment in question, locates it in all the concrete complexity of its historical context, traces the historical process by which the command got distorted from its original meaning, explains the real-world consequences of that distortion, and points out how the Court can repair the damage going forward. His goal is a return to the framers' vision, aimed at protecting the liberty he cherishes as dearly as they did." (72)
July 15, 2022
Excellent book that gives a brief history of Clarence Thomas’ life growing up and how it formed his opinions and stances on the Constitution. It also provides an equally important history of how the high court’s judgments on prior cases from the 1800’s through early 2000’s has led to the dilution of the Constitutional rights afforded to Americans and the overbearing and hegemonic authoritarianism of the federal government. The author makes the case that this got its start initially under Woodrow Wilson and then ramped up aggressively under FDR as part of his New Deal agenda and has only gotten worse since. The author also shows how the SCOTUS emphasis on upholding precedents in prior cases decided by Justices enabled bad decisions and laws to remain in effect. America today is at a critical point where if the interference of government in the every day lives of Americans isn’t stemmed and even reversed, that Americans may never regain their God-given rights bestowed upon them and granted by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Those being the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
November 19, 2023
Equal parts summary of Clarence Thomas’ life, and overview of governmental overreach, this was an emotionally complex book. The biographical chapters were masterfully written and empowering, showing how a person doesn’t need to wallow in the worst parts of their story, but can take them as a challenge and rise above them. The parts focusing on our “lost” Constitution were just as interesting – spellbindingly so – but were ever so maddeningly frustrating to see the examples of how our government has become so bloated that it is hurting the very people it was supposed to originally serve and protect. Sigh. Great book. It’s important to learn, so that we can take a stand for right.
January 16, 2024
I really like this book. An easy to read, 134 page book, gives a layman's overview of the history of the Constitution and American law since the founding. Any ordinary person can easily read, enjoy and learn from this book, and if you are scheduled to take Bar Exam, this book will help you get ready for the Constitutional Law portion of the test. It contains an interesting biography of Justice Clarence Thomas' life from his upbringing and includes an analysis of his opinions on the Supreme Court, which by reference included all the major decisions of the Court since its founding, and the influence of those decisions on the evolution of American law and culture.
Read
January 11, 2021The book had fewer direct quotes from Justice Thomas’s decisions and dissents than I would have liked. Quite a bit of a justice’s idea as well as their wit is lost when summarized in someone else’s words. The book addressed Thomas’s argument against stare decisis, where the Supreme Court relies largely on past precedents, but again, that’s something I would have enjoyed more in Thomas’s own words. There were some nice passages, including one from Tocqueville’s New Despotism.
December 26, 2021
Too much CPAC level propaganda that wouldn't even pass for a FedSoc speech. When it goes get around to talking about Thomas' phenomenal opinions on things like the commerce clause or when it examines his formative years it is incredible, but in general the random broadsides on famous liberals that are randomly instereted are jarring and detrimental to the books readability. More focus on Consitutional law and less on propaganda would have made this a 5.
December 3, 2022
This was a great (albeit short) look at Justice Thomas. It explores his background growing up with his sharecropper grandparents and how that upbringing informs his judicial philosophy. He is certainly one of the great testaments to the American system of meritocracy and overcoming adversity, but for some reason doesn't get the recognition he deserves in the mainstream.
August 27, 2020
What a lively book! Americans should read this not only to learn more about Justice Thomas but also to see how we got into our present mess, where the judiciary actually rules against the Constitution.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews