Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
MR. PARK: Diversity is our nation’s greatest source of strength, but as our Reconstruction founders understood and our nation’s history confirms, it also poses unique challenges to the American experiment. We live in a large and sometimes unwieldy democracy, and for that democracy to flourish, people of all different backgrounds and perspectives have to learn to live together and unite in common purpose….
JUSTICE THOMAS: Mr. Park, I’ve heard the word “diversity” quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means.…I’d like you to give us a specific definition of diversity in the context of the University of North Carolina. And I’d also like you to give us a clear idea of exactly what the educational benefits of diversity at the University of North Carolina would be.
MR. PARK: …And so we value diversity of all different kinds in all the ways that people differ in our society. On — on the educational benefits question, Your Honor, I don’t think it’s actually disputed here that there are real and meaningful educational benefits that come with diversity of all kinds. SFFA’s own expert…conceded and agreed enthusiastically, in fact, on the stand that a racially diverse and a diverse — diversity of all kinds leads to “a deeper and richer learning environment,” leads to more creative thinking and exchange of ideas, and, critically, reduced bias between people of different backgrounds and not solely for racial backgrounds.
I just finished reading Justice Thomas’s memoir My Grandfather’s Son because he has been in the news recently and it looks like progressives are going to try to intimidate him for his concurrence to the Dobbs decision (among other reasons). What a great book! The first two chapters are as good a description as can be found […]
John first penetrated my awareness in the gospels. He was an Elijah, a Jeremiah, an Isaiah, in an age when the prophets had been silent for 400 years, and in an age when, to my young mind, no other prophets were needed. The Son had come. The demon Baal and his profits were now truly and utterly and forever defeated and cast out.
If the feet of the Son trods the mountaintops publishing peace, what is this mere prophet doing here? And the Son tells us, John is the greatest of all the prophets. Not that the Son isn’t a prophet and immeasurably greater than John, but the Son is something that is the epitome of so many titles. Prophet, priest, rabbi, king, shepherd, son … friend. He chides John to baptize Him despite the odd asymmetries of that moment, to fulfill all righteousness. I have read commentaries, but I am still convinced that the full and exact portent of those words will not be shown to me until the fulfillment of the promise of the resurrection of the body, when I ask Him to His face.
When 83-year old Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer announced his retirement in February, it neither surprised nor initially concerned me. Hard-charging leftists demanded Breyer’s resignation ever since their legal and cinematic icon, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, passed away in 2020, leaving President Trump an opportunity to nominate and the Senate to confirm Amy Coney Barrett in quick order, […]
Why is it so hard to get more than one or two real Supreme Court Justices at a time? Last week, Justice Thomas gave a stirring speech, a model of a classic American. Some excerpts:
“What had given my life meaning and sense of belonging, that this country was my home, was jettisoned as old-fashioned and antiquated. … It was easy and convenient to fill that void with victimhood. … So much of my time focused intently on our racial differences and grievances, much like today.”
“As I matured, I began to see that the theories of my young adulthood were destructive and self-defeating. … I had rejected my country, my birthright as a citizen, and I had nothing to show for it.”
My favorite Supreme Court Justice of all time is Clarence Thomas, for his courage in sticking to his principles, despite knowing they are unpopular with the tastemakers of the day, no matter the consequences. This courage was a deliberate decision by Thomas. In February 2001, he gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute outlining […]
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana abortion law requiring doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Chief Justice Roberts again sided with the left in Monday’s ruling on June Medical Services v. Russo. (PDF here.)
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas offered a blistering dissent not only against this decision but the entirety of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade was decided. Below are excerpts from Justice Thomas’s remarks.
Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction. As is often the case with legal challenges to abortion regulations, this suit was brought by abortionists and abortion clinics. Their sole claim before this Court is that Louisiana’s law violates the purported substantive due process right of a woman to abort her unborn child. But they concede that this right does not belong to them, and they seek to vindicate no private rights of their own. Under a proper understanding of Article III, these plaintiffs lack standing to invoke our jurisdiction.
Gary Robbins, Bob Thompson, and I held a Ricochet mini-meetup on Saturday in Scottsdale, AZ. We met at the Il Capo Restaurant for a nice Italian lunch — Gary’s treat, so thanks again, my friend. In our lunch discussion, we reached complete political agreement on all issues. Gary is now a confirmed, ardent Trump enthusiast who loves walls and Big Beautiful Coal and hates Adam Schiff. No, wait, not yet. (He will be, once the Gary pod growing in my garage is matured.)
After lunch, Gary and I watched the new documentary about Justice Thomas, called Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words. I enjoyed the movie, which was a touching and interesting presentation of the life of this outstanding Justice and American hero. There was little focus on his jurisprudence, and much focus on his extraordinary life story, from extreme rural poverty on the Georgia coast during the Jim Crow era, to his study in a Catholic seminary, his days as a student radical in the ’60s, and his eventual development into a Reagan Republican.
There was significant coverage of the outrageous Senate hearing, for political junkies.
Magnet contends that Justice Thomas’s originalist jurisprudence offers a path forward for recovering our nation’s “lost Constitution” and restoring America as a free, self-governing nation made up of self-reliant citizens.
David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate stronger than expected economic growth of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019. They also pour cold water on the absurd notions that Anita Hill was treated unfairly by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991 and that Clarence Thomas is somehow assumed guilty of doing what she accused him of doing. And they react to a judge in Massachusetts and the mayor of Baltimore finding themselves in heaps of legal trouble.
“I don’t think I know a single judge who has allowed religion to interfere with their jobs. I think if you start the day on your knees, you approach your job differently from when you start thinking that someone anointed you to impose your will on others.” — Justice Clarence Thomas
I once wrote a story featuring a monarchy in the far future. In it, the main character spoke at length about the vital nature of religion in such a society. Without faith, the king answers to no one in life or death. There is no law above him, no judgment.
Senator Susan Collins is my hero for the day. I am always wary of Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Collins (R-ME) when any check on abortion-on-demand is at issue. However, Senator Collins has been a true stateswoman in the Kavanaugh hearings. She has sent a letter to Chairman Grassley, published on her Senate webpage, which will make the absolute best out of the mess intentionally created by Senator Feinstein.
Senator Collins proposed the Judiciary Committee hearing open with the attorneys for the accuser and the accused questioning the two of them. This would let the strongest questions be asked before Senators start grandstanding or pulling punches. Senator Grassley knows he has a problem: he has no female Senator on his side of the room, so the optics will be bad if they don’t roll over. The two attorneys are both women.
Steven Hayward of Power Line believes that Senator Collins’ recommendation, if wisely adopted, will be decisive in this political contest:
If Sen. Flake, who the careful John Hinderaker now calls “traitor,” truly believes Judge Kavanaugh’s 11th -hour Democrat accuser, he will immediately call for the judge’s impeachment. If Flake and the abortion-on-demand supporters, Senators Collins and Murkowski, believe a word of the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, if they even really believe the allegation is serious, then they will also immediately hold a press conference demanding the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas. They will do no such thing because they believe none of this.
As John Hinderaker explains:
“Traitor” is normally considered a harsh word, but it is the only printable thing I have called “Republican” Senator Jeff Flake since he announced, a few hours ago, that he is “not comfortable voting yes” on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. His concern is the ridiculously stale allegation by Democrat professor Christine Ford that Kavanaugh groped her and tried to kiss her at a party when they were both high school students more than 30 years ago. You might reasonably think this is a joke. Unfortunately not.
Set aside the revulsion or shock over what Weinstein did. Set aside too the anger over the hypocrisy of those who knew of what he did and let him get away with it anyway. Instead, spare a thought for those whom Weinstein damaged without ever meeting them. I speak of the very youth of America who will ultimately bear the brunt of the punishment for the fools and power brokers who ever have covered for the creeps among the powerful.
The system that allowed Weinstein to flourish will likely remain unchanged, as the powerful will ever and always be protected and shielded until the dam breaks, while the national outrage instead ever further confuses and separates the relations between men and women, leaving honest and decent young men confused and afraid, and honest and decent young women even more unprotected against offense.
Why is this likely? Because it keeps happening. I came of age in the wake of the Clarence Thomas nonsense and public hysteria over sexual harassment. Set aside the question of whether Anita Hill was honest in her accusations, the fact was that her accusations were national news and endlessly discussed. Schools, colleges, and businesses nationwide, seeing the damage wrought merely by an unproven and ultimately unprovable accusation, reacted rapidly to create and enforce sweeping new policies governing the interactions between men and women in order to mitigate against charges directed their own way. In many respects this reaction went entirely too far.
When I stood next to the President in Kennebunkport being nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, that was a high honor, but as I sit here before you 103 days later, that honor has been crushed. From the very beginning, charges were leveled against me from the shadows, charges of drug abuse, anti-Semitism, wife beating, drug use by family members, that I was a quote appointment, confirmation conversion, and much, much more. And now this.
Mr. Chairman, I am a victim of this process. My name has been harmed. My integrity has been harmed. My character has been harmed. My family has been harmed. My friends have been harmed. There is nothing this committee, this body, or this country can do to give me my good name back. Nothing. I will not provide the rope for my own lynching or for further humiliation. I am not going to engage in discussion nor will I submit to roving questions of what goes on in the most intimate parts of my private life or the sanctity of my bedroom. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy and they will remain just that, private.