Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas

As we enter election season, this book is well worth reading (or re-reading) as a cautionary tale about what kind of Supreme Court justices are likely to be added to the nation's highest court as the current justices retire if George W. Bush is elected.

Clarence Thomas comes off vividly as a sullen benefactor of affirmative action at school after school, who turned on that very institution after he had benefited handsomely from an education capped by graduation from Yale Law School. David Brock has since recanted his writing of "The Real [sic] Anita Hill." Witnesses to Thomas's his office behavior whose testimony might have been exceedingly damaging were never allowed to speak publicly until interviewed for "Strange Justice."

And relatively early in Thomas's career, while serving in the Missouri state attorney general's office under John C. Danforth, "Thomas liked to taunt another member of the office, who was prim and painfully shy, by making outrageous, gross, and at times off-color remarks. '...He couldn't help but to needle the guy--he just liked to get under his skin,'" said a co-worker.

"The target of Thomas's taunting was John C. Ashcroft," who, of course, currently serves as our nation's Attorney General. Another co-worker interviewed by the authors of "Strange Justice" who also remembered such episodes described Ashcroft as "a tightly wound, straitlaced teetotaler... [he] was easily flustered by Thomas." Ashcroft's discomfort "apparently encouraged Thomas to goad him further," the co-worker noted.

Since his narrow margin of confirmation, Thomas has been one of the quietest members of the bench. Except for a somewhat controversial "at home" piece in PEOPLE magazine about Clarence and Virginia Thomas (his second wife has worked for the Heritage Foundation), he rarely speaks publicly. Recent news reports quote Thomas as saying that he does not read the newspapers. His vote contributed to the 5-4 margin that put George W. Bush in the White House.

Even if you're currently weary of the floodtide of books detailing up-to-the-minute political events, this chronicle from the recent past remains a disturbing, worthwhile sideline into a historical event that may foreshadow similarly controversial Court nominations in the future. Remember, George H.W. Bush was considered by many Republicans to be "too moderate." Caveat!


Finally the truth   November 9, 2003
12 out of 14 found this review helpful

Before you read this book, I would reccomend you read David Brock's "Blinded by the Right". Brock wrote "The Real Anita Hill" which was a right wing smear account of Anita Hill when he was in the throes of right wing idealogy and also per his account in "Blinded by the Right", his mouth was firmly attached to the Right Wing teat, "American Spectator" which was funded by right wing fanatic Richard Mellon Scaife. The funny thing about this book is, when you finish reading this book you will probably feel more anger towards the democrats who controlled the reins of power in the legislative branch at that time in the Senate. Senate Majority leader was George Mitchell and the Judiciary Committe Chairman was Joseph Biden. These two lily livered poltroons ably assisted and co-managed the lynching of Anita Hill in many ways. Biden was so much in love with himself at that time (I think he still is) that he did not want to get involved in any controversy by taking a lead role in giving Hill's testimony a fair shake. He sat on her signed and faxed statement to him for many a day, serially informing other Senators one at a time about the allegations, he agreed to let Hill testify first and then reneged, giving the first turn to Thomas and then brought on Thomas again for a second time after Hill's testimony giving Thomas the last word on the issue. George Mitchell's role is also documented as giving aid and comfort to Biden, speechifying on the Senate floor in support of Biden's modus operandi in the hearings, stone walling women's groups who wanted to delay the floor vote on the nomination by claiming disingenously that he had no power in the matter. The capitulation of the democrats is an amazing read especially at this time when polarization has seeped into every pore of the American body politic. Its amazing how craven the democrats were explaining away their lily livered behaviour as "lending a balanced approach" during the hearings. Some day we will see the denoument to this piece of history. Its not over yet. We will see what becomes of Clarence up high on that bench someday.


Terrible Journalism   September 15, 2003
Edward Saint-Ivan author of The Black Knights God (Tampa, Fl. USA)
3 out of 31 found this review helpful

Don't waste your money! This book is beneath the prestige of two Wall Street Journal reporters.
For example, the authors wrote "Hill was Professor of Law at Oklahoma State University in Norman."
Hill was Professor of Law at The University of Oklahoma in Norman.
Oklahoma State University is in Stillwater.
The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt disparaged David Brock but his book got it right. Not surprisingly, Hunt praised this book to high heaven.
I predict history will vindicate Hill and better books will follow.


read it again now   August 4, 2003
Christopher FH Robling (Chicago)
4 out of 7 found this review helpful

with bill keller's elevation of jill abramson to new york times managing editor for newsgathering last week, this early-90's recounting of the fateful thomas nomination should move up a notch with all who wish to acquaint themselves more closely with abramson's journalism.

the book has its supporters and detractors. if you believed hill and thought the democrats didn't "get it," then you will most likely think this book tells the needed story. if you believed thomas and thought president bush was making a bold statement through his nomination, then you will probably find this book to be item "a" evidence of a vast left wing conspiracy.

all of that is water now well under the bridge. what matters is abramson's top day-to-day position at the paper that sets much of the journalistic agenda for the nation and the world. in this book, which i think everyone, regardless of their political orientation, agrees is well written, you will find the storytelling one may reasonably expect abramson to advocate in her new job.

and, unlike other contemporary history authors, mayer and abramson included considerable notes on sources, etc.

(it is interesting that the book started in mid-1994 what appeared to become an effort to call thomas' qualifications for the high court so much into question that whispers of impeachment were heard. alas for the anti-thomas lobby, the fall 1994 elections -- putting the senate and the house under republican control -- intervened. despite jim jeffords' switch that, for the last nine years at least, has been that.)

regardless, i am re-reading it. perhaps you should, too.