“Ask the Author”: Supreme Discomfort, Part 1

This edition of “Ask the Author” features a discussion with Michael Fletcher and Kevin Merida of the Washington Post; their new book is Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas. For more on the book, see the official website here. You can also read the author’s original Washington Post Magazine profile of Justice Thomas here.

First of all, would you mind putting this project in perspective? You both are writers for the Washington Post, though neither of you regularly covers the legal beat. What was the impetus behind your 2002 profile of the Justice for the Washington Post Magazine? When did you decide that you wanted to continue the story by writing a book?

We were both intrigued by the passion that is stirred by the mere mention of Clarence Thomas’s name. There are no soft opinions about him, particularly among African Americans. We were once at a going-away party for a black professional friend and Justice Thomas’s name was harmlessly invoked. Just like that, a raging debate was kindled, drawing people from across the room. That gave us the idea that Justice Thomas would be a great subject to explore in a deep way, not only because of that interest but because of his place as a powerful figure in our society and someone who is likely to be a historic figure. Also, we were interested in the question of racial authenticity and why it is that so many people question Justice Thomas’s racial bonafides based on his conservative positions. So we did the magazine story with the idea of a book in the back of our minds. And once the Washington Post Magazine published our story in August 2002 and it was well received, we put together a book proposal which resulted in book contract in 2003.

One reader would like you to discuss Supreme Discomfort’s place in the canon of Thomas biographies. How is your book different from earlier biographies by Ken Foskett and Andrew Peyton Thomas? And have you heard anything about Justice Thomas’s own long-in-the-making autobiography (which you allude to in the book)?

The major difference between our book and the two you mention is that we try to assess Justice Thomas largely through a racial lens, because for Thomas–like all African Americans–race is an inescapable fact of life. We deal more directly and in more detail with Thomas’s estrangement from broad swaths of the African American community. Also, our book spends more time focused on the culture of the court and Thomas’s place in that cloistered institution.

You discuss at length both how devoted Thomas’s law clerks are to him – “no justice is closer to his clerks than Clarence Thomas,” you write – as well as how warm he is in person, especially around children. How are we to reconcile this picture with the Justice’s near-complete silence, both at oral argument and in the media? How much of this public silence is related to his confirmation hearings, especially in view of he sees himself as being portrayed in the media? Moreover, Justice Thomas is among the most willing to visit law schools, give speeches, and speak with law students and high schoolers. What do you think explains his willingness to be publicly available for these types of events, but then be silent with respect to the media and at oral argument?

Justice Thomas is a man of sharp contradictions. Criticized for rarely showing empathy in his opinions, he is among the most accessible justices–at least in safe settings where he is unlikely to have his views challenged. Justice Thomas radiates humility and has a booming laugh, and a lively sense of humor. He also is attracted to young people, whom he sees as carrying no agenda when it comes to him. With the press, he has a long memory for slights real and perceived and he gives interviews very selectively–a position we believe was hardened by his confirmation experience. Justice Thomas’s silence at oral argument is a complicated matter that we don’t see as directly related to his confirmation hearings. He has explained his silence several ways over the years, perhaps most interestingly by saying he developed the habit of listening because when he attended a minor seminary outside of his hometown of Savannah, Ga., he was criticized by teachers for having a Gullah dialect, which is common among African Americans in coastal Georgia. That wound was especially deep because Thomas was the only black student in his graduating class at the seminary. Ironically, the justice is a commanding speaker now.

Also, Thomas says that asking questions at oral argument is usually unnecessary and, in any event, rude to the lawyers who are there trying to make their case. We add to that that Thomas probably just is not very comfortable in the fast-paced forum of oral argument where questions come fast and furiously and from all angles. Obviously, this makes him no less of a justice any more than not being comfortable on “Meet the Press” would make a reporter less of a journalist. One of Justice Thomas’s former clerks added another element, which illustrates the stubbornness that many friends say is part of the justice’s persona: he said that the more people make an issue of Thomas’s silence, the less likely he is to speak from the bench.

Speaking of his relationship with the media: one reader wonders how he takes attacks on his jurisprudence that delve into the realm of the personal; the reader notes that “it almost appears as though his status as the iconoclast is worn as a pseudo-badge of honor.” Do you agree with this assessment?

In some ways we believe that is true. Justice Thomas often turns sarcastic when publicly addressing some of the harshest critiques of his work. For example, he once responded to the charge that he follows Justice Scalia by noting that justices rarely see one another and cracking that, consequently, Scalia must “have a chip in my brain.” Justice Thomas frequently asserts his right to be an individual and resists the pressure to fall into the “black orthodoxy” when it comes to his positions. But he often sounds weary and burdened by the weight he carries even as he tries to be defiant in the face of it.

Part 2 will run tomorrow.