To the Editor:
Re “In Rare Remarks, Thomas Denounces Public Scrutiny Facing His Family” (news article, May 12):
At a recent judicial conference, Justice Clarence Thomas complained bitterly about “the nastiness and the lies” about him and his wife, Ginni, in the last few years.
And yet, these are the facts: He accepted lavish gifts from powerful friends and failed to report them. His wife was indisputably involved in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the duly elected new one. But somehow to report these facts, and to criticize the Thomases for their behavior, is nasty and “hideous.”
He discussed his goal of making the court more representative of the country by hiring law clerks from non-Ivy League schools. Perfectly reasonable. Indeed, that concept has another name: diversity, equity and inclusion. Which Justice Thomas plainly detests when applied to minorities, because (I guess) he believes that it belittles the accomplishments of those who receive a helping hand.
I’ve doubted Justice Thomas’s judgment in the past; now I doubt his advocacy skills in general. Because his arguments are self-pitying and unpersuasive.
Stephen J. Bubul
Minneapolis
To the Editor:
Justice Clarence Thomas’s comment about the nastiness and lies he and his wife have faced really corroborates a bias he has demonstrated as a justice in favor of right-wing positions.
He has always been bitter about the way that Democrats conducted his confirmation hearings, and I feel certain he holds them solely responsible for “the nastiness and the lies” he’s complaining about now.
He has shown that he is human by secretly availing himself of luxuries offered to him by very wealthy people. As a justice I think he has revealed another very human instinct: revenge.
He has done nothing to evidence a balanced view of the Constitution as the passage of time has affected societal norms and needs. Rather, he has steadfastly shown those Democrats a thing or two about how justice is dispensed at the Supreme Court.
Peter Alkalay
Scarsdale, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “Justice Offers a Historical View of the Court” (news article, May 11):
In his remarks at a judicial conference in Austin, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that with the passage of time many of the court’s initially controversial and unpopular decisions have come to be seen more favorably and sometimes even as inevitable. He cites, among others, Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 school desegregation case, and the requirement of Miranda warnings, almost certainly to tacitly provide cover for the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
Of course, one crucial difference between the examples presented by Justice Kavanaugh and Dobbs is that almost all of the former instituted or protected the rights of a certain group whereas the latter has removed a right that had become deeply ingrained and steadily more popular.
The American people will eventually accept and even embrace decisions that align with their collective moral compass. The consistent success of recent pro-choice ballot initiatives in even deeply conservative states is strong evidence that, in the case of Dobbs, the court headed in the wrong direction.
Jason Ungar
Darien, Conn.
To the Editor:
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is fond of using sports analogies to explain judicial matters, insists that oral arguments are no predictors of how the justices will actually vote — “it’s like picking who is going to win the game in the fourth inning.” He called Chief Justice John Roberts’s dictum that judges are like umpires “four of the most famous words ever uttered.”
He said that Americans today will come to accept recent Supreme Court decisions because they have accepted “wildly unpopular” ones in the past. I offer up some additional sports analogies for him to consider in our post-Roe world:
Women in the upcoming elections are ready to take off their gloves and fight hard in defense of abortion rights. We will keep our eye on the ball — the right to control our bodies — and come out swinging. It won’t be a slam dunk, but as some recent state elections have shown, we are heavy hitters. Our votes matter and we will fight down to the wire.
(This coming from a person averse to almost all sports, and everyone’s last pick for high school and college sports teams.)
Cathy Bernard
New York
To the Editor:
Re “Alito Warns of Threats to Freedom of Speech and Religion” (news article, May 12):
At the commencement of a Catholic university, Justice Samuel Alito is quoted as saying about freedom of religion: “When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job or a community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”
It seems incredible that Justice Alito does not seem to understand that no one is asking that someone else’s core beliefs be abandoned. What is being asked is that Justice Alito and the court protect core beliefs that he and others may not share.
I, personally, feel very unprotected by this court, especially when it comes to my religious beliefs.
Joseph Connolly
Brunswick, Maine
The writer is a retired pastor.
‘All Oppression Is Not Alike’
To the Editor:
Re “What a ‘Free Palestine’ Actually Means,” by Bret Stephens (column, May 15):
Mr. Stephens is right to observe that “Queers for Palestine” is a concept that can exist in a free society like ours and not in Gaza. Student protesters tend to conflate all forms of oppression, and to imagine that easy solutions like “Free Palestine” are readily available.
In reality, all oppression is not alike. Different groups — Black people, women and gay people, for example, and, of course, Jews — have been suppressed and abused in different ways at different times by different people. And each group has traveled its own unique path in its ongoing efforts to achieve liberty and security.
Moreover, all misfortune and misery are not oppression. As Mr. Stephens recounts, the Palestinians are certainly subjected to harsh treatment by Israel, but this is part of a century-long quagmire of mutual hostility. Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected political solutions and forgone opportunities to build a civil society. Gaza has as many characteristics of a failed state as it has of an oppressed people.
Protesters’ moral impulses are very honorable; their rhetoric and demands have unfortunately been ignorant and simplistic.
Ron Meyers
New York
Republican Hypocrisy on Antisemitism
To the Editor:
Re “The Antisemitic Tropes Echoed by Republicans” (front page, May 12):
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of congressional Republicans who are using their feigned outrage at antisemitism on campus to score political points. Where were these Republicans during the white supremacists’ march in Charlottesville in 2017 and chants of “Jews will not replace us,” and other more subtle but no less despicable attacks on Jews in recent years?
I have been disgusted by Republicans’ cynical attacks on college leaders (really attacks on elite institutions) for not doing enough to address antisemitism on campus.
The high (or low) point of their so-called outrage was when Speaker Mike Johnson and fellow Republicans traveled to Columbia University to decry antisemitism. It did nothing but fan the flames of an already tense situation, in keeping with the Republican playbook: Increase fear and division for political advantage.
Marci Greenstein
Bethesda, Md.