Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Justice Thomas' Theory Of Rights And Government

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Atrios, Adam Serwer criticizes Clarence Thomas for saying this:

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.” “I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

Taken in isolation, I think you could use Thomas' statement as a starting point for progressive government. Think about it. What are the obligations and responsibilities of the citizenry to the country? How about, for one, contributing their fair share to the prosperity of the whole country. How about the rich have the responsibility and obligation to the nation to contribute to the Common Good? Of course, that is not what Thomas means:

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?” He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, I could apply Thomas' thinking to the Masters of the Universe and their belief that they have right to be country club members, have million dollar bonuses, and oh BTW, low taxes on income, investments, and their multi-million dollar estates.

Because what Thomas is REALLY saying is that some rights matter to him and some do not.

In Atrios' post, he writes:

Does [Thomas] even know what the [C]onstitution is for?

Atrios seems to be arguing that the Constitution exists to protect rights. The Constitution does indeed protect individual rights, mostly in the Bill of Rights. But first and foremost, the Constitution establishes a system of government.

Justice Thomas pretends to have disdain for rights, but his entire approach is imbued with the unquestioning view that property rights are inalienable and that any government action in which the property rights of individuals are impaired is a gross violation of natural law and our theory of government.

In this era of "Tea Parties," it is quite ironic to hear Justice Thomas, who no doubt fully believes in the Tea Party ideology, complain about the "virtual nobility" accorded those with "grievances." I have no doubt he believes the "Tea Parties" are noble, because he does not respect the system of government created by our Constitution.

[UPDATE - Kagro had the same thought as I did, while Josh Orton ignores this point.]

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 13, 2009 (boomark / email).