The Daily Signal - INTERVIEW | How Clarence Thomas Went From Childhood Sleeping on Dirt Floor to Becoming ‘The People's Justice’

Episode Date: July 6, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas grew up with little. He and his younger brother slept on a dirt floor, and their mother struggled to make enough money to feed them. When he was a boy, Thomas’ mother sent him and his brother to live with his grandparents in hopes of a better life.  Thomas’ “grandfather raised them with an iron fist,” federal appeals court Judge Amul Thapar says, “and this becomes important as you go through his jurisprudence, because there were a couple of things his grandfather did that impacted a young Clarence Thomas.”  Thomas’ grandfather taught him that complaining accomplished nothing, that education was invaluable, and to think for himself, Thapar says. Those principles, he says, have influenced Thomas, now 75, as a Supreme Court justice.  But despite Thomas’ commitment to the Constitution, he has faced criticism from the Left over the years, something Thapar contends is a result of the justice’s loyalty to judicial originalism.  “Critics need a caricature because they don't like originalism,” Thapar says. “Why? What is originalism at its heart? It returns the power to the American people.”  In his new book “The People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him,” Thapar details how Thomas has sought through his time on the bench since 1991 to return power to the American people.  Thapar, elevated to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by then-President Donald Trump in 2017, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to share stories of Thomas’ life and his legacy as a Supreme Court justice. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since he's gotten on the court, I think there's been this misperception. The critics have always been looking for who could be controlling Clarence Thomas. I've got the answer for him. Clarence Thomas is controlling Clarence Thomas. This is the Daily Civil podcast for Thursday, July 6th. I'm Virginia Allen, and that was Judge Amal Thapar. The story of Justice Clarence Thomas will likely surprise many Americans. and in his brand new book, The People's Justice, Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him, Judge the Par, takes the time to detail the effect Thomas had not only on the Supreme Court, but on those who've had the opportunity to know him personally.

So today, I am so pleased that we are joined by Judge the Par of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. judge, thank you so much for being here today. And congratulations on your brand new book, The People's Justice, Clarence Thomas, and the constitutional stories that define him. Judge, thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you very much for having me. Well, in writing this new book, The People's Justice, Clarence Thomas, and the constitutional stories that define him, you have really delved deep into the life and the cases of Justice Clarence Thomas. In all that you have learned about it,

what do you think is the best way to describe Justice Clarence Thomas? If you had describe him in just a few words, how would you do that? I would say he's passionate, caring, and a person of the people. I love that. Well, and I think that element you do such a good job of detailing as you talk about his early years and his life. Share if you would just a little bit about Justice Clarence Thomas's early. early life and who raised him? Yeah, I mean, I think the early life for Justice Thomas is such an important factor that is often left out. And you can see it interestingly traced through his

jurisprudence. So he was born in the tidelands of Georgia. And he was born during segregation. And his mom was raising him and his younger brother, but she was so poor that they literally slept on a dirt floor. So when you say dirt poor, I think Clarence Thomas, as a child was the epitome of dirt poor, so much so that his mom was making $10 a week and could not afford to feed a young Clarence Thomas and his brother, so she gave them to their grandfather to raise. And the grandfather raised them with an iron fist. And this becomes important as you go through his jurisprudence, because there were a couple things his grandfather did that impacted a young Clarence Thomas. The first and foremost was whenever Clarence Thomas or his brother,

said they couldn't do anything. His grandfather had a saying that they knew well, and it was, old man, Kant is dead. You know how I know? I helped bury him. And so the complaining was not acceptable. There was no barrier they couldn't overcome in their grandfather's mind if they put their mind to it. The second and really important thing, and maybe there's three, if I can, that their grandfather thought is that education means emancipation. And he's thinking, even though he himself had a third grade education, he knew Clarence's and his brother's way, young Clarence Thomas and his brother's way out of dirt poorness and the lifestyle they were living was education.

And so he saved every penny he had to send a young Clarence Thomas and his brother to a Catholic school where the nuns and Justice Thomas attributed. much of his education to the nuns. Not only education, book education, but life education. And the third thing that just, and this is a quote from Justice Thomas, that his grandfather taught him is to assert his right, and I'm quoting, to think for myself, to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave because I am black, to state that I'm a man, free to think for myself. and do as I please and to assert that I am a judge and I will not be consigned to the unquestioned

opinions of others. So three important things. One, you can do anything if you put your mind to it. Two, a young K through eight education may be the most important education you're going to have because of your formative. Those are your formative years. And third, don't let others tell you how to think. Be intelligent enough to form your own opinions. And then stand. by them, but be open to change if you believe you are wrong. So critical. Well, I love the number of stories that you have told in the book. Like you've just explained some of his early years and his background that I think so

few people are unaware of how he grew up. But in all the research that you did and in talking to so many different people about the life and the legacy of Justice Thomas, were there any stories that really stood out to you or that surprised you that you? learned whether it was about his early life or his time at the Supreme Court. You know, I think the thing that surprised me the most that I knew a little bit of but didn't realize the depth of is the amount of care he exhibits for ordinary people in everyday life. In fact, if I wanted to teach my kids or anyone, anything to take away from Justice Thomas,

it wouldn't be his amazing intellect. Of course, that's God given in someone. ways, it wouldn't be even his work ethic, although of course I'd like everyone to emulate that. It would be the fact that when he talks to someone, doesn't matter who, they're the most important person in the world. And let me give you an example. And then you see this in every interaction he has. Once you see it through this prism, I was at Yale with him for a celebration of Justice Thomas, believe it or not, for 25 years on the bench.

and afterwards they had a reception and the faculty was there, many of whom are as critics, but would love to spend two minutes with him. Students were there. Who did he spend most of the time with the support staff? And then when we were charged with taking him to a private dinner that the school was hosting, we had to get him away from that reception. We were 30 minutes late to the dinner because Justice Thomas insisted on staying and taking a picture and thanking every support. staff person individually. He would take an individual picture with anyone that wanted him. And that's the type of man he is. He's not looking over someone's shoulder to see who's next. He's not doing those things. And you know what? That care for people is reflected in his jurisprudence, hence the name the people's justice. Well, let's go ahead then and dive in to some of that jurisprudence

and talk specifically about some of the cases that you detail in the book and you've interviewed so many individuals who have been involved in these cases. Let's start by talking about the Kilo case. Yeah, so Zazak Kilo is this woman who's a little down on her luck. She's breaking up with her husband. She's looking for a house. She's got a job as a paramedic and she can't afford what she wants. But what she can afford is a very run-down house in a blue-collar neighborhood. She wants a view of the river. A view of water was her dream. And she found a house that she thought was perfect. It was so run down, the real estate agent was embarrassed to sell it to her, but Suzette was going to buy it, no matter what, and she bought it. But she knew to fix the house she needed a second job. So she went

to school to become a nurse, got a nursing degree, and put her money into the house. Blood, sweat, and tears, doing most of it herself, many things herself. And she loved it so much when the house was done, this beautiful house, she had it painted Odessa Pink. She lived in this wonderful blue-collar neighborhood. But at the same time that she had put all this effort into the house, the city of New London was trying to recruit an elite corporation to come to town. And they found a partner in the Pfizer Corporation, someone your listeners may have heard of. And Pfizer and the city of New London agree that Pfizer would take over an old mill site.

But Pfizer didn't want to just come and put what they believed was their wonder drug Viagra. have a plant for it at the site and office building. They wanted more. What did they want? They wanted upscale apartments and condos. They wanted a mall with restaurants and nice shopping and a health club. So when their executives came, when their executives stayed there, they would have a nice place to say, well, that wouldn't fit on the site they had. So they wanted to use a process known as eminent domain.

to take this blue-collar neighborhood. This blue-collar neighborhood where Suzette Kilo lived, and where people like the Derrys, her neighbors lived, their family had been there for over 100 years. They loved the neighborhood so much that when their kids got married, they put a down payment on a house in the neighborhood itself. Well, Suzette Kilo and her neighbors weren't having it.

They were going to fight. And they begged and pleading, got a public interest law firm. known as the Institute for Justice to take the case, and they fought all the way to the Supreme Court. And it gets to the Supreme Court. An eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. It says that the government can take your property for public use with just compensation. As Justice Thomas will later explain, that means for things like sidewalks, where they take a sliver of your front yard so they can put a sidewalk in, or to widen a road, something the public will. will truly use? Well, it gets to the Supreme Court, and the city's argument is that it is a public

use, or as they called it, public purpose because the Supreme Court in the 50s had changed the terms of the Constitution and an opinion known as Berman that I'll come back to. The city argued that the Pfizer Corporation coming in would increase the tax base, and as a result, that benefited the public purpose. And Scalia, and we put this up, there's a Twitter page for the book. It's the People's Justice, if they put it in Twitter, they'll find it. We put this up because no one believed it. Justice Scalia asked the city's lawyer, so you're saying if you take from the poor and give to the rich,

because the rich will pay more taxes, you're allowed to do that. That serves a public purpose. And the answer was yes. He was so surprised he asked it again. And the answer was yes. Do you want me to go on and tell you what happened? Well, I'm very curious to hear how Justice Thomas weighed in on this case. So the opinion comes out, and Suzanne and the Institute were hopeful they would win, but they lost five to four.

And the principal dissent was written by Justice O'Connor, and Justice O'Connor wrote the lead dissent saying that something like a corporate purpose was not a public person. purpose, basically. I'm summarizing, and she did a much better job than my summary, but I want to get Justice Thomas joined that dissent. But then he wrote separately, he's the only one that advocated going back to the original meaning of public use. And he pointed out, and the thing that no one talks about is who invited him. The Institute for Justice didn't ask that they go back to the public use because they thought a corporate purpose was not a public purpose, so they thought this was a better vehicle to win the case, and it makes sense because they didn't know if they could get five votes to go back. Of course, they wanted to, but go back to the original meaning. But who the NACP

asked in an amicus brief that the court go back to the public meaning. And the reason they did is the Berman case was out of D.C. And the Berman case was used by the District of Columbia to take what they called blighted property and other property for apartment buildings and and other things, nicer buildings and run out the poor. As Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent, that when you get away from the original meaning, it often has unintended consequences. And this book shows that over and over,

like the New York Times v. Sullivan chapter. But to come back to this case, he points out that in Berman, 97% of the people who were displaced were black. He points out that when we get away from the, original meaning, all sorts of things happen that the public doesn't even understand. And he said this, and I'm quoting him, by changing the standard from public use to public purpose, he says, and now I'm quoting, against all common sense that a costly urban renewal project, who stated purpose is a vague

promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer corporation is for a public use. And then I love this quote, and I have to read it, and then I'm going to stop talking. I'm sorry, you can tell I care about this case, but something has gone seriously awry with this court's interpretation of the Constitution, Justice Thomas warned. When those citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not safe. And what he's saying there is the Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures inside your homes. But apparently after Kilo, the government can take your home for a public use that is suspiciously

agreeable to powerful corporations. Wow. Do we know what happened as a result to the people in that town who were forced to have to give up their homes? Such a great question. And the aftermath, they level all the homes. the people have to leave. Of course, the Institute for Justice made sure they got fair compensation, but what I would ask any of your listeners is,

would it be fair to take away a home you love that your family's been in everything else just because they paid you what may be market value, which usually isn't what you get. By the way, in the chapter talks about some horrific incidents of cities using eminent domain to run out the poor, and they can't even, they don't even give them enough that they can buy a new house, because as we all know, No, house prep values go up. But what happens is Pfizer comes in, and then eight years later they leave. And Suzette Kilo, in the dairies and the other people who lived in that blue-collar neighborhood, today that neighborhood is a barren field.

And I went to New London and took a picture of where Suzette Kilo's home stood, and I put it in the book because I wanted the readers to see what happens when we get away. from the original meaning of the Constitution. It often harms the little guy. Remember, the new criticism, the criticism that you so often hear is the originalism favors corporation over consumers, the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor, the government over the little guy. This book, in the stories of the cases, proves the opposite is true.

Now, I challenge your listeners to go out and Google where it reports at the time. that Justice Thomas took up the NAACP's view, that Justice Thomas championed poor black and other minorities' individuals' views, that Justice Thomas' original meaning of the Constitution would favor the common man over government and corporations like Pfizer. And we, you know, I think there's so many cases that you just do such a phenomenal job in the book of detailing

and showing the ways that Justice Thomas has sought time and time again to hold to that really intended meaning in the Constitution and originalism. And yet, despite that, he has faced so much criticism over the years. He's even been called an Uncle Tom. Why do you think he has faced such criticism when he has tried to remain so faithful to the Constitution? You know, that's a great question that I just can't figure out. I almost think they need, critics need a caricature because they don't like originalism. Why? What is originalism at its heart? It returns the power to the American people. So the Constitution is a contract. It's a contract between the American people and their government. We're given our God-given rights. And in exchange for a slight intrusion on them, we gave, we created a limited federal government. And that limited federal government allowed the federal government to do certain

defined things, but it retained everything else to the American people. That doesn't mean when people say, oh, my gosh, we have to amend the Constitution. That's so hard. That's simply not true. We see with Title VII and other things that you can pass laws by engaging your fellow neighbor, getting Congress to do things, getting your city council to do things, getting the state to do things. And so it's simply not true that you can't do things if the court doesn't do it.

The court, by honoring the words of the American people, returns the power to the people. And I think it's who do you trust at the end of the day. Justice Scalia had this great saying, and it was kind of tongue-in-cheekboy. He meant it. And it's that with the issues of today, if they're not provided for in the Constitution, I would trust nine people randomly chosen out of the phone book rather than nine people in this building. And what he's saying is, I trust the American people. Why does Justice Thomas so strongly trust the American people?

Because remember, they want people like him and me to say, no, the American people are bad. The American people are this. Why do we trust them? I'm the child of immigrants. My dad came here with a one-way ticket and a $5 bill. Justice Thomas grew up dirt poor. we trust them because people like he and I in this country, if you roll up your sleeves and do your best, can rise to the highest levels.

Yep. Absolutely. Well, and I think that really brings us to the question of what have the long-term effects been, the larger implications of Justice Clarence's jurisprudence been on the Supreme Court as a whole? How has his perspective shifted and changed the Supreme Court? or has it. Since he's gotten on the court, I think there's been this misperception. The critics have always been looking for who could be controlling Clarence Thomas. I've got the answer for him. Clarence Thomas is controlling Clarence Thomas. Remember what his grandfather taught him. See,

this all goes back to that. His grandfather taught him he could always think for himself. He doesn't listen to anyone other than the American people through the words of the laws they enact. And so that he's like a rock, right? He's a constant. And everything else might move, but he's constant. Well, what has happened over time is he stays constant and people see the wisdom of his ways. And so the courts have slowly moved towards that. What is that, too, that returns the power where it belongs, out of government and back

to the people? And so there's a beauty in that that I think more and more people will realize, and I hope this book will convey. Well, and I do want to ask you before we let you go, we have just ended this Supreme Court term, and it ended on Friday with quite a bang rulings on student loan cases and the free speech case 303 creative. What were any surprises in the way that Justice Thomas ruled on these cases? Or were you surprised at all as far as any of his rulings in this term? I wasn't, and I'm going to give you a very short summary of the three, and then I'm going to hit the one I think is really important to his jurisprudence,

although all of them are. So the 303 creative is really about rights of conscience. And since a pledge of the allegiance case that maybe your listeners should go read, it's a lot of fun. There's fun in a way in that the Supreme Court. court changed their mind pretty quickly about the right to conscience. And if you go back and study the original meaning of the Constitution, the one thing, the anti-federalists, they wanted the bill of rights, right? Everyone says, oh, they're the losers. They're really not when it comes to

the bill of rights. The anti-federalists are the winners when it comes to the bill of rights, because they're the ones that demanded it. They're the ones that got it. And the principal thing they were concerned about is government directing the way we think, the way we worship, the way we think, and the way we speak. And that's all reflected in the First Amendment. The right to conscience turned into the free speech, the right of free exercise, all these things that are reflected in 303 creative, but everyone says this, you know, the people saying this is a one-off, I go encourage them to read Barnett, which Justice Gorsuch cites versus West Virginia about the pledge of the allegiance and how we're not going to compel people to pledge allegiance to the flag because of the rights of

conscience. The second one, the student loan case, again, it's bicameralism and presentment, right? The Constitution provides a mechanism by which the American people's money can be spent. And that is bicameralism presentment. Justice Barrett's got a really thoughtful concurrence that I would encourage. It's only 16 pages people should read about why these important questions in some ways are left to the American people. And that means we can do it. Just have Congress do it and the president sign it into law. The third case and the one I want to highlight because I think the book talks to this and is upbringing talks to this is the affirmative action case, students for fair admission. If you look at chapters two and three in the book, you'll really get a feeling where you can talk to your friends who are, who disagree about that case in a really educated way. And I'm going to give you the synopsis.

And then I'm going to just take a minute and you can tell me, stop, we're out of time. Or you want to ask a question. Please interrupt me. But Justice Thomas believes affirmative action, and this is going to shock people, is an unconstitutional band-aid on a much bigger problem. And what do I mean by that? And that is affirmative action he believes benefits the elites at the expense of the poor. How do we help the poor? What was informative to him K through A?

Education means emancipation. Chapter 2. The titles, education means emancipation. emancipation. What's it about vouchers? Go read that chapter and tell me we should leave the kids in Cleveland in the failing public schools versus giving them what is a constitutional alternative a voucher. The Democratic leader of the Ohio, I believe General Assembly, has this great quote about vouchers. And it's in the book, and I'm going to butcher it. And I'm sorry to Patrick Sweeney for doing so, but it was a bipartisan bill. And he's

said that the people who oppose vouchers are people that have a voucher in their pocket, meaning they have a checkbook where they can write a voucher themselves and they don't want these inner city kids in their schools. That was the Democratic leader, remember, the Democratic Party, because it was a bipartisan bill with a lot of heroes that Chapter 2 talks about. What is the final thing, I'll stop after this and take another question, or you can cut me off and say, look, you've talked too long. but in SFFA, to tie these two chapters together and tie his life all in one neat, quote,

he rejects the notion that slavery has cast blacks into a permanent inferior caste. And he says, and I'm quoting, it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers rather than consign themselves to permanent victimhood. Remember, old man can't is dead. You can't be a victim. Now, I want all of your listeners to do one thought experience. Think of your own kids. If you set the bar low, what do they do? They reach that bar. If you set the bar high, what do they do? They reach that bar. Justice Thomas, in the Grutter case that students for fair admission overturned, complained that the elites were setting the bar low for blacks and keeping them forever in an inferior cast. Critical.

So it's really a bringing it full circle in so many ways. It is, and it shows, the book hopefully shows you how his life impacts it, and that he's not only the leading originalist, but he adds things. You know, we didn't talk about Brumfield. He adds things, and hopefully your listeners, when they get it, get the book, we'll seed this. He talks about the original meaning, and then he shows its impact. He shows who it impacts.

And look at how often he's championing the poor. Minorities, right? He's called an Uncle Tom and a traitor to his race. The book proves the opposite's true through his own words. I don't, unlike the critics, I won't tell you what to think. The introduction and conclusion are my own. Everything else is incredibly sourced and the stories of the cases. And the one thing I ask your listeners to do is get the book, get it in a reading club with critics of Justice Thomas, and then talk to them and say, look, if these words are accurate, are as critics right? And if you don't believe them, go pull the cases.

Yeah. The book is the People's Justice, Clarence Thomas, and the constitutional stories that define him. It is out and available now. You can get your copy at Barnes & Noble. Amazon wherever books are sold. Judge, thank you so much for your time today. We truly appreciate your insights. Well, thank you for having me, and I'm sorry I talk so much. You got me excited. No, it's wonderful to hear these stories that you so often, I think, are missed by the public. And so we truly appreciate you joining us today. And again, if anyone wants to pick up a copy of the book, It's the People's Justice, Clarence Thomas, and the constitutional stories that define him. But with that, we're going to leave it right there for today's episode. Thank you so much for joining us on the Daily Signal podcast.

To all of our listeners, if you haven't had the chance to check out our evening show, you can do so. It's right here in this same podcast feed where we bring you the top news of the day every day around 5 p.m. Also make sure to take just a moment to subscribe to the Daily Signal podcast wherever you like to listen to podcasts. But thanks again for being with us today, and we'll see you right back here at 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Lewy and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheras. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop.

To learn more, please visitdailySignal.com.