"My Grandfather's Son," by Clarence Thomas. Harper, 2007, 289 pages.

---

Long Journey, Hard Road

by J. H. Huebert

Clarence Thomas is many libertarians' favorite Supreme Court justice, and with good reason: his opinions hew more closely than those of any other current justice to the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

His dissenting opinion in Raich v. Gonzalez provides an outstanding example. In that case, the majority held that Congress could prohibit cultivation, sale, and use of medical marijuana, even if that activity occurs entirely within one state, under the Constitution's commerce clause. Justice Thomas attacked the majority view, writing: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Dissenting from the notorious Kelo v. City of New London decision, Justice Thomas argued that the eminent-domain power was never intended to allow the government to take from one private party to give to another.

And in a dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, he argued that state laws prohibiting sodomy may be inappropriate restrictions on freedom — but should be repealed by state legislatures, not by a Supreme Court that presumes to answer controversial policy questions for the entire country.

The Constitution is far from perfect — after all, it has failed to stop the enormous growth of the federal government over the past century. But there can be no doubt that if four other justices (out of the nine) shared Thomas's views, government would become much smaller.

Of course, the majority of the country knows and cares nothing about originalist judicial philosophy. Their ideas about Clarence Thomas stem instead from Anita Hill's scandalous allegations at his televised confirmation hearings. And a certain segment of the country hates him for holding views on race and economics that are inimical to theirs.

For all these reasons, Justice Thomas' memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," is of interest.

The majority of the book covers the period of Justice Thomas' life before he was a household name — indeed, the book concludes on his first day at the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas takes us back to his birthplace, Pin Point, Georgia, where he and his fellow blacks spoke Gullah, a version of creole dialect. Raised by his grandparents (hence the book's title) in nearby Savannah, the young Thomas learns something that is a theme in the biographies of virtually all highly successful people: self-discipline. His grandfather makes him put schoolwork first, work for the family fuel-oil business and farm second, and play last.

Explaining why he would not take government assistance, Thomas' grandfather told him, "Because it takes away your manhood. You do that and they can ask you questions about your life that are none of their business. They can come into your house when they want to, and they can tell you who else can come and go in your house."

Thomas summarizes that for his grandfather "real freedom meant independence from government intrusion, which in turn meant that you had to take responsibility for your own decisions. When the government assumes that responsibility, it takes away your freedom — and wasn't freedom the very thing for which blacks in America were fighting?"

As Thomas grew up, he rebelled for a time, and resentment against race discrimination in the late 1960s drove him to radical politics. But his experiences with reality and the lessons learned from his grandfather made him question leftist rhetoric before long. A book by Thomas Sowell, "Race and Economics," and conversations with George Mason University economist Walter Williams helped shape his thinking, too, as did two novels by Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged."

We could find things to criticize in Thomas' ideas and career. For example, in recent decisions, he has been far too willing to cede a disturbing amount of power to the executive branch of government.

In Thomas' time as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Reagan administration, he ran his office conservatively, doing his best to avoid baseless discrimination lawsuits and to bring his budget under control. But like the president who appointed him, he never pressed to have his office eliminated — which, of course, it should have been under his own limited-government constitutional philosophy.

Yet even his mild reforms in that office — combined with his statements that government handouts and preferences are not the solution to blacks' problems — caused the press and so-called civil rights groups to attack him viciously, long before anyone had heard of Anita Hill.

Thus, the book provides food for thought on whether it is advisable for an advocate of liberty to work within government. And, through the details of his EEOC tenure and especially his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, the book also shows how far enemies of liberty will go to stop someone they perceive as a threat to their agenda.

Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas is probably the best we will ever do on the Supreme Court. It seems unlikely that any president or senators will be inclined to appoint or confirm another nominee who would tell them that they cannot just do whatever they want. But while he is there, it is good to have Justice Thomas as a frequently dissenting voice, reminding those who are paying attention that there should be limits on government — and providing a far better example for poor young blacks than all of his venom-spewing critics combined.

© Copyright 2010, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.