Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
August 7, 2004
LAW: "Bombshell"?

Stuart Buck properly slams this Legal Times article for calling it a "bombshell" that a new biography reveals that Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis in constitutional cases, something that should have been well-known to any reader of his opinions. I rather think the author of the article overstates the case as well in calling stare decisis in constitutional cases "the key principle of our society's rule of law."

Interestingly, the book under discussion also sides with Thomas (at least partially) in the famous sexual harassment charge:

Near the end of the section on Thomas' confirmation crisis, Foskett makes a bold statement: He believes Thomas.

"In the end Thomas and Hill remained the only two people who knew what transpired between them, and each told a different story," Foskett writes, noting that the two had a social relationship of some form before they worked together. "Although it was plausible that Thomas said what Hill alleged, it seemed implausible that he said it all in the manner Hill described.

"Bullying a woman wasn't in Thomas's nature and ran contrary to how he conducted himself around others in a professional environment. And if the context wasn't as Hill alleged, was it fair to turn private conduct into a political weapon to defeat his nomination?" Foskett asks.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:58 AM | Law 2002-04 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg