And, so far as I'm aware, he's attentive during oral arguments, albeit not particularly interested in jocular byplay with the attorneys.

Nobody's talking about jocular byplay; remember, cases that come before the SC are generally complex--ones that have produced a good deal of disagreement at lower levels of the judiciary. As such, one would expect an engaged Justice to have questions for the attorneys or to seek clarification on some of the finer points of the arguments presented.

Except that there's zero evidence it happened

.

Not true. Angela Wright, Sukari Hardnett and others recounted Thomas' bad behavior.

What really gets me about the Thomas nomination is how dismayed and appalled Thurgood Marshall was when he learned that Bush had nominated Thomas. Clarence Thomas is not 1/1000th the man that Thurgood Marshall was, and if you don't understand what I'm saying, compare their biographies. Thurgood Marshall travelled in the 1940s and 50s through the Jim Crow south defending black cases, which must have required unbelievable guts and courage. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, got where he was by sucking up to conservatives. I'm a white person, and I have NO respect for Clarence Thomas; if I were black, he'd probably make me crazy.

Thats odd. I though Thomas's hearing focused quite a bit on his character, or lack thereof....

And James, you really should read "Strange Justice", by a WSJ reporter and a New Yorker reporter. You do seem to be under some illusions about the whole conformation fight....

For Thomas, it seems, everything comes down to race....

Even there, though, there's an accuser and an accused. We make judgments about their relative credibility and the facts presented. If someone's character was presumed good to begin with, then, the burden is on the accuser by virtue of simple inertia.

Oh, I don't know, I rather liked OJ before he, you know, murdered two people.

Plunk:

In all the comments bashing Thomas here I don't see any with a sound argument against his judicial ability. Nothing pointing out glaring errors in legal thinking or cognitive abilities.

What part of "evaluation of the man's character" is hard to parse?

I love the Bill Clinton got a pass argument. If I remember correctly there was an independent counsel investigation followed by impeachment proceedings. The entire thing lasted over two years.

Thomas is the one who got the pass from the same people who hounded Clinton for years at great expense. Thomas' confirmation hearings lasted about a week and he was confirmed.

Unless I don't remember correctly, Clinton hardly got a pass.

I do see people judging a man based upon unproven accusations. A former president was given a pass on boorish (or worse) behavior on more substantial evidence by many of these same folks.

I hardly see one chapter of his book as anything more than a full explanation of the events of those days from his perspective. They deserve to be in the book along with the other important events of his life.

By the way, what did they serve for dinner? I would think AEI would have some pretty swell chow and booze.

Heh. Well, it was Heritage which is likely less booze friendly than AEI (or even my own, much less financially endowed Atlantic Council). We had iced tea and water.

A nice salad which I didn't eat because I don't like salads, followed by a surf and turf (filet and some sort of white fish) with asparagus, and a really good chocolate cake with raspberries with coffee.

The Justice shared several anecdotes, some of which are doubtless in the book and others of which I’m sure my dinner companions will share in their posts.

By the way, what did they serve for dinner? I would think AEI would have some pretty swell chow and booze.

How could any liberal expect to receive a fair hearing from such a man?

He doesn't try individual cases; he weighs in on important matters of law as one vote among nine.

One might as well ask how men could get a fair hearing in front of Justice Ginsburg, who spent most of her adult life as a feminist activist. One presumes, however, that she's a person of character and does her best to be fair. She's a biased human being, though, as are we all.

Justice Thomas gets our tax money and is expected to do two things: Maintain a superior level of expertise of American law and jurisprudence and to treat all cases that come before him impartially, without regard to who brings them and with an open mind to both sides of the case. Now, I am not in a position to evaluate his expertise and we are all entitle to and perhaps burdened with opinions that we cannot simply erase from our minds. But what does his continued anger and sense of persecution that fifteen years into his lifetime appointment speak towards his ability to be impartial and fair? How about his tendency to attribute all the perceived slights and wrongs against him to an entire ideological group (liberals), than individuals and his subsequent comparison of that group (encompassing nearly a quarter of all Americans) to domestic terrorist organizations like the KKK? What dignity does he bring to his appointment to have honorary dinners at ideologically-sympathetic think tanks, to which he only invites the loyal and personally sympathetic? How could any liberal expect to receive a fair hearing from such a man?

From knowing him for a few years I trust James Joyner to be honest in his observations and resulting conclusions. He was among a group of webloggers privileged to have dinner with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Joyner writes,
Thomas has a hear...

Think Progress

Last night, the Heritage Foundation hosted a dinner for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and “a small number” of conservative “bloggers and New Media members.” During the dinner, Thomas told the right-wing b...