We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
How Anita Hill’s Confirmation Hearing Testimony Brought Workplace Sexual Harassment to Light
Supreme Court Justice nomination hearings are never dull. But few observers expected the issue of whether Clarence Thomas should serve on the highest court of the land to become a firestorm—and a national referendum on sexual harassment. That all changed on October 11, 1991, when ...read more
Clarence Thomas confirmed to the Supreme Court
After a bitter confirmation hearing, the U.S. Senate votes 52 to 48 to confirm Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. In July 1991, Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court, announced his retirement after 34 years. President George Bush ...read more
Clarence Thomas Says His African-American History Museum Exhibit Is Wrong, Doesn’t Want To Talk About It
When the National Museum of African American History and Culture opened, some people thought there was a glaring omission. Clarence Thomas, only the second African-American to serve on the Supreme Court, did not have a spot.
On the one hand, sure, he&rsquos black. And on the Supreme Court.
Employment Associate Needed In Chicago
On the other hand, it&rsquos not called the National Museum of Self-Loathing and Antipathy Towards Racial Justice.
Whatever, movement conservatives complained, and a year after the museum opened, it included an exhibit to Justice Thomas and Justice Thurgood Marshall.
That was two years ago. Last week, for I believe the first time, Thomas weighed in on his honor:
Clarence Thomas to Smithsonian Rubenstein:
"Student who visited African American Museum told me exhibit on me said my views on affirmative action result from my going to various schools. Student: True? No. Did they talk to me before put up exhibit? No"https://t.co/N0wxPlc3pV
&mdash Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) June 3, 2019
Stay Ever Current With The Unique Challenges In Copyright And Trademark Law
Oh, you want to talk about why Clarence Thomas is against affirmative action, which is only the most successful social program to address racial injustice ever implemented? You want to talk about why Justice Thomas, a beneficiary of affirmative action, has come to hate the program?
Fine, let&rsquos talk about that. Because his views have little to do with any sound reading of the Constitutionally permissible use of race as one factor among many to consider in college admissions. Instead, they have everything to with Thomas being a bitter little man who has never gotten over personal mistreatment and indignities he suffered over his career.
While at Yale Law School, Thomas was treated, by white people, as an affirmative-action admit. Instead of respecting his intellect and talents, he felt other students dismissed him as needing special help to get into school. I understand how annoying this is, as it happened to me. It happens to EVERY black person. No matter where you go or what you do in this country, there&rsquos always a white man waiting for you who thinks you&rsquore dumb.
MOST black people learn that the problem is not them, but the white people. Most black people figure out that some white people will always diminish their accomplishments, no matter what, and learn to keep on stepping. Thomas never did. Instead of rejecting the white people who stereotyped him, he&rsquos spent his career seeking to join them. Thomas blames affirmative action for confusing these white people into thinking he&rsquos less than, and imagines a world where every white person respects a black person for their accomplishments. Somehow he&rsquos twisted affirmative action into part of the problem.
In reality, affirmative action has been the thing that forces white people to interact with black and brown people, and helps some of them learn through exposure that a person&rsquos color has nothing to do with their brainpower.
And that&rsquos the charitable way of explaining Clarence Thomas&rsquos views. If you wanted to be more unkind, you&rsquod point out that Thomas is the classic example of a person who climbs a ladder into a treehouse, then quickly pulls the ladder up behind him, preventing others from scaling those heights. Thomas is obsessed with proving, to white people, that he is where he is on his own &ldquomerits,&rdquo without any &ldquohelp,&rdquo that he assumes that all other black people would also benefit from receiving no assistance in fighting against racism and injustice. The &ldquomeritocracy&rdquo argument might be compelling to those who are too addled to remember that we&rsquore not actually living in a meritocracy. Especially when it comes to admissions, people get all sorts of help. There are legacies and there are networking advantages. And sometimes your mom writes an entire op-ed to help you get a Supreme Court clerkship and it works.
Now, I&rsquoll give Thomas points for intellectual consistency here: he seems to hate legacy admissions just as much as he hates affirmative action. But the problem is that neither he nor his conservative cabal makes any attempt to end the practice of legacy admissions, or all the other &ldquoside doors&rdquo into college that disproportionately benefit white students and rich students. It&rsquos only affirmative action &mdash it&rsquos only the program that does NOT directly benefit white people &mdash that Thomas places under constant legal attack.
So, yes, the African-American History Museum does not do justice to the petty and damaged reasons Clarence Thomas is against affirmative action. But something tells me he doesn&rsquot want all of his psychological dirty laundry hanging on his plaque for all to see. Maybe we should just change the entry to &ldquoClarence Thomas is opposed to affirmative action, because white boys at Yale never hugged him,&rdquo and leave it at that.
How tall is Jamal Adeen Thomas? He is a tall and handsome guy. Currently, Jamal Adeen Thomas height is estimated to be 6 feet 2 inches. Also, he has maintained a muscular body with average body weight of 76 Kg. He has black eyes and his hair color is black as well.
|Jamal Adeen Thomas||Wiki/Bio|
|Real Name||Jamal Adeen Thomas|
|Famous As||1. Actor|
2. Son of Clarence Thomas
|Height||approx. 6 ft 2 in (1.80 m)|
|Weight||approx. 76 Kg|
|Body Measurements||approx. 44-29-38 inches|
|Biceps Size||21 inches|
|Eye Color||Dark Brown|
|Shoe Size||16.5 (US)|
|Net Worth||$500 K – $600 K|
Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas: The Backstory
With a brief voicemail message, the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has revived the scandalous allegations from 19 years ago that Thomas had sexually harassed former employee Anita Hill.
Virginia Thomas left a message earlier this month with Hill, now a Brandeis professor, asking for an apology for the allegations made during Thomas' Senate confirmation hearings.
(Scroll down to watch Clarence Thomas on "60 Minutes" in 2007)
The testimony from Hill, a former aide to Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, led Thomas to refer to her as "my most traitorous adversary" in his 2007 book "My Grandfather's Son."
In 1991, Hill submitted a confidential statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that Thomas had sexually harassed her 10 years earlier, when they were both single. The FBI had already investigated the charges and given the committee what was called an inconclusive report. The committee decided not to pursue the matter. But two days before the full Senate was expected to confirm Thomas, Hill's statement was leaked to reporters.
"It was only after they had been leaked illegally, to the public and the press, that then it's outta hand. It's in the feeding frenzy," Thomas told "60 Minutes" Correspondent Steve Kroft in 2007 profile.
Under pressure from women's groups and Democrats in the Congress, Hill was summoned before the Judiciary Committee to testify before live television cameras. More than 20 million households tuned in to watch the proceedings.
Audio Clips from Anita Hill's 1991 Testimony
Hill accused Thomas of making inappropriate remarks. She said one such comment came as Thomas was drinking a soft drink in the office.
"He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, 'Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?'" Hill told senators.
Hill also testified that Thomas would boast about being well-endowed and has experience in pleasing women intimately. She also said she felt uncomfortable about her job situation.
"I began to feel severe stress on the job," Hill told the committee. "I began to be concerned that Clarence Thomas might take out his anger with me by degrading me or not giving me important assignments. I also thought that he might find an excuse for dismissing me."
When it came time for Thomas to publicly respond to Hill's allegations, he turned the tables on his interrogators and for all intents and purposes ended the debate.
"This is a circus. It's a national disgrace," Thomas said during the hearing. "It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."
On Oct. 15, 1991, the Senate confirmed Thomas' nomination 52-48, the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote in history.
In the voicemail message, the contents of which were confirmed by CBS News, Virginia Thomas said, "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."
In a statement Tuesday, Hill said she "certainly thought the call was inappropriate," and she contacted Brandeis security officials, who later informed the FBI, after hearing it. She said she had "no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."
In her statement, Thomas said she meant no offense.
"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same."
Created Equal: 12 Quotes on Racism from Justice Clarence Thomas
We are in a unique time in history. The tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of a white police officer is fueling protests, some violent riots, and the toppling of statues all in the name of justice and equality for all.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the only African-American member of the U.S. Supreme Court (and who celebrates a birthday this week), has also experienced the same anger at the problem of racism in this country. As a college student, Thomas became a member of the Black Power movement.
As the high court completes its term issuing decisions in a number of closely watched cases, here’s a look at some of Thomas’ own observations and insights on racism in America — and how he has chosen to deal with it.
Gleaned from a new documentary released this year, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, shows one man’s painful confrontation with racial bias and his struggle to come to grips with it in his own conscience. The justice’s earliest ancestors were slaves dating back to the 18th century. Growing up in Pinpoint, Georgia, Thomas lived a poverty-stricken life in the segregated South. As he was fatherless, his mother made the wrenching choice to let Thomas and his brother, Myers, move in with his grandparents. His grandfather, stern and rigid, minced no words on the day they moved in: the vacation is over.
It was in his grandfather’s house that Thomas began to develop his own response to life in the Jim Crow south. From his primary years learning from Catholic nuns in a school with segregated classrooms, to his shocking experience with racism while attending seminary, the evolution of the justice’s thoughts about himself, race, and God took many twists and turns.
In Created Equal, Thomas underscored a key element of his character.
“I was born at home, right on Shipyard Creek in 1948. My mother always said I was too stubborn to cry, and I guess that was a sort of indication of the kind of person I would be."
After moving in with his grandfather, Thomas chafed at his disciplinary regime, yet that stubborn streak led him to resist racial bias and low expectations for black students. As an adolescent, he was determined to excel in the classroom.
“You assume you’re going to be discriminated against. So I can't get a 98 . I have to have 100. In other words, to leave them nothing but race. It's sort of like ‘checkmate.’”
But his impressive academic record could not protect him from racial slurs. The only African American student at a Catholic seminary, he was shocked when a classmate openly disparaged the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ultimately, Thomas left the seminary enrolling in the Jesuit-run College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. There he embraced the Black Power movement.
"And for the first time in my life racism and race explained everything. It became, sort of, the substitute religion I shoved aside Catholicism and now it was this, it was all about race."
The scope of racism stirred anger in him, and some of it was deflected towards his grandfather. Thomas found himself lashing out on all that had shaped him.
“I’m angry with my grandfather. I’m angry with the church. If it’s a warm day, I’m angry. If it’s a cold day, I’m angry. I’m just angry.”
One fateful night after a protest that turned violent, Thomas wandered into a church and found himself pleading to God.
“If you take this anger out of my heart, I will never hate again.”
After this conversion of heart, Thomas began to see how the life of his own grandfather was shaped by the brutal and routine experience of racism.
“You couldn’t walk across certain parks: you couldn’t go to certain schools people’s property being taken people taking advantage of him [my grandfather] because they could say ‘the law did this’ or ‘did that.’ So I decided I was going to go to law school.”
He had a found a new vocation as a lawyer and enrolled in Yale University Law School. But he was under no illusions.
"If you were black, and you were at Yale, the presumptions were quite different. If you're white, and you graduated from Yale, the presumption is that you are among the best. On the other hand, if you're black and you're there, you didn't quite belong."
During his time in law school, Thomas begins searching for where he does belong.
"I was never going to be a part of that world I was never going to be white. The problem is I could never go back completely to the world I came from."
He had reached a new crossroads. He knew racism was real but he was drawn to a different path of study and reflection. He became committed to libertarian and conservative principles. And as he became voluble in his beliefs, he faced what he saw as another form of racism: political liberals who attacked him for refusing to share their beliefs. After joining the Republican party, and was later appointed to senior posts in both the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, he was accused of betraying his people.
“Any black misguided enough to accept a job in the Reagan administration was automatically branded an ‘Uncle Tom.’”
“Any black misguided enough to accept a job in the Reagan administration is automatically branded an ‘Uncle Tom.’”— Justice Thomas Movie (@JusticeCTMovie) March 23, 2020
—Clarence Thomas#CreatedEqualClarenceThomasInHisOwnWords pic.twitter.com/R5M6yNNyDx
After his service in two Republican administrations, Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. But his Senate confirmation hearing became a flash point in America’s culture wars when he faced accusations of sexual harassment.
At the confirmation hearings, he categorically rejected these accusations and fiercely defended his reputation. He argued that he was being punished for refusing to embrace Democratic party principles.
“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”
Thomas was narrowly confirmed and has served on the high court for 28 years. His jurisprudence remains grounded in the founding father’s original intent for the constitution as written. In his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, and elsewhere, he has affirmed his belief that the inalienable dignity and rights of all, regardless of skin color, “come from God” and not the state.
“They start with the rights of the individual, and where do those rights come from? They come from God they’re transcendent. And you give up some of those rights in order to be governed. They’re inalienable rights. And you give up only so many as necessary to be governed by your consent.”
Thomas celebrated his 72nd birthday June 23, and while much has changed since his childhood growing up in the Jim Crow south, he acknowledges that racism is still a reality today. Yet as he makes plain in his memoir, Thomas loves his country.
“As much as I hated the injustices perpetrated against blacks in America, I couldn't bring myself to hate my own country, then or later.” ― Clarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son
Alyssa Murphy Alyssa Murphy is the Register's Managing Editor of Digital Assets. Starting her career on the airwaves in San Francisco, she has worked in all facets of media. Alyssa enjoys writing and covering stories that inspire and uplift. Register readers may be familiar with her voice from EWTN radio's Morning Glory. Alyssa currently lives in New Jersey just outside Manhattan with her husband Andrew and young daughter, Annabelle.
U.S. Bishops Vote on Pro-Abortion Politicians (June 19)
The U.S. Bishops met in a virtual assembly this week. The center of debate was “Eucharistic coherence” — how to respond to declining belief in the Eucharist on one hand and how to handle Catholics in public life like President Biden who promote abortion and transgenderism in laws contrary to what the Church teaches. Register Washington Correspondent Lauretta Brown covered the conference and gives us a wrap on Register Radio. Also, the Supreme Court just decided unanimously that the City of Philadelphia can’t force Catholic foster care agencies to place children in same-sex households. EWTN News legal analyst Andrea Picciotti-Bayer provides an overview.
Children Are the Real Winners in ‘Fulton v. Philadelphia’
Foster parents who care for children through the agency of the local Catholic Social Services could be empowered by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision to continue this selfless service.
Supreme Court Sides Unanimously with Catholic Adoption Agency in Religious Freedom Win
“CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
The History Behind the Next Landmark School Choice Case
The state of Maine operates a tuition assistance program to help families pay for public or private schools, but religious schools have been excluded for more than 40 years. The case may soon head to the Supreme Court.
Letter from Pope Francis Expresses Support for Fr. James Martin’s Controversial ‘LGBT’ Ministry
Father Martin's ministry has become increasingly controversial because of his incremental departure from Catholic doctrine.
Pope Francis at the Angelus: ‘Let Jesus Look at and Heal Your Heart’
Arguing that life’s greatest disease was not cancer, tuberculosis, or the coronavirus, Pope Francis said the most "serious illness in life is a lack of love, and not being able to love."
The Dialogue of Love: Preparing Your Heart for the Liturgy of the Word
COMMENTARY: The heart-to-heart dialogue of the Liturgy of the Word prepares us to be united to Christ in Holy Communion.
Life, Death and Faith, and the Raising of the Daughter of Jairus
SCRIPTURES & ART: A meditation on the readings for the Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Life, Death and Faith, and the Raising of the Daughter of Jairus
SCRIPTURES & ART: A meditation on the readings for the Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time
Sarah’s House Is a Warm, Welcoming Home in a Cold, Cruel World
The Fort Meade, Maryland, Sarah’s House is more than an emergency shelter — it also offers an atmosphere of trust built on love.
Why Did Martin Luther Remove Inspired Books From the Bible?
“It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.” (CCC 120)
This Protestant Dogma Helped Open My Eyes to the Truth of the Catholic Church
Since ‘Sola Scriptura’ is a foundation of Protestant theology, once I realized it was self-refuting, I had to back away from my Protestant beliefs.
© 2021 Advance Local Media LLC. All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Advance Local.
Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.
Trying to erase history
However, since Thomas’ confirmation to the Supreme Court, many liberals have pretended Justice Thomas does not exist. One of the most blatant examples of such behavior occurred when the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C. opened in 2016 with no exhibit mentioning Justice Thomas.
Smithsonian officials faced intense backlash over the decision to snub the second black Supreme Court justice in history, when they granted exhibit space to Black Panthers, hip-hop and Black Lives Matter activists.
Justice Clarence Thomas in Atlanta on Feb. 11, 2020. (Photo: John Amis/AP)
Eventually, the museum gave in to public outcries and installed an exhibit honoring Thomas and former Justice Thurgood Marshall. But, to this day, click on the museum’s homepage and you won’t see an image or mention of him.
Try clicking on the exhibit titled, “Making a Way out of No Way” — an exhibit dedicated to African Americans who “… created possibilities in a world that denied them opportunities.” You won’t find a mention of Justice Thomas, even though the man’s life story represents the very essence of this exhibit.
Time and time again, Thomas is ignored because he is a conservative black man who unabashedly supports limited government and defends the Constitution. Carrie Severino, who clerked for Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court, writes that he “often makes his calls for constitutional fidelity alone, like a biblical prophet crying out in the wilderness. But that doesn’t bother him, first because he didn’t take an oath to try to create coalitions, to make friends on the Court, or to please the chattering classes. He took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution.’”
The release of “Created Equal” shines a much-needed light on Justice Thomas’ inspiring story and hopefully will help educate the American public about this great man.
Clarence Thomas’ History Lesson
In May of 2019 Justice Clarence Thomas submitted a news-making concurring opinion about a case pertaining to a restrictive abortion law in Indiana. It made news because Justice Thomas dared to make a connection between “the right to choose” and America’s history of deciding who is "fit" or "unfit" to reproduce. I’ve read the twenty-one-page opinion and have found it to be an informative and factually sound essay on the history of eugenics in America as well as a clear warning against constitutionalizing eugenic-like abortion laws.
Below is my attempt at a summary of his entire opinion, which can be found here.
The case referenced is Box vs. Planned Parenthood. The state of IN asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision that Indiana’s Disability Abortion ban was unconstitutional. The Court denied certiorari, (they declined to review) and Justice Thomas concurred for now. It’s his concurring essay that caused a stir in the media.
Thomas’ main point is that it’s possible that sex selective and disability abortions could be used in the future for eugenic purposes, and therefore, States have a compelling interest to restrict these abortions legislatively.
He takes the time to first define ‘eugenics,’ which was a term coined by Francis Galton as “the science of improving stock” so that the “suitable” would eventually overcome the “less suitable.” Eugenics is basically engineered social Darwinism.
Next, he states this little-known fact: eugenics became quite the rage in the U.S. around the 1920’s, and intellectual elites at Harvard were some of the movement's biggest promoters. Harvard eugenicists wrote articles, published textbooks and lobbied government to implement eugenic ideas and laws. Stanford and Yale were also involved in the movement.
[Incidentally, around this time the book, “Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens” or, “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life,” was published. This book and the sterilization procedures learned from American eugenicists gave Hitler and his Nazi doctors the impetus behind their ideas of racial purity.]
Eugenicists used many terms and distinctions to lump the dysgenic together, but the imprecise term “feebleminded” was a favorite. So, in 1927 the Supreme Court decided in Buck vs. Bell that Carrie Buck should be involuntarily sterilized due to "feeblemindedness." Ultimately, Carrie Buck was declared normal, but the Courts decision gave new boldness to eugenicists. By 1931 twenty-eight states had sterilization laws and Carrie Buck was one of 60,000 people who were sterilized against their will.
After the concentration camps were exposed at the end of WWII, sterilization's popularity tapered off, but the eugenics movement did not, “and support for the goal of reducing undesirable populations through selective reproduction. by no means vanished,” (Thomas)
Enter Margaret Sanger. Birth control enthusiast, eugenicist, and a woman who thought that poor, ignorant blacks were "the great problem of the South," and that their "reckless spawning" would be the ruin of our civilization. She opens a birth control clinic in Harlem.
Something that's not well-known about Sanger is her disdain for abortion. She thought it too deadly a moral evil for womanhood and for "racial development," and campaigned heavily instead for birth control. However, others in her circles, like Alan Guttmacher, thought the legalization of abortion to be the perfect advancement of eugenic goals despite Sanger's views.
Decades after Roe v. Wade, with the term 'eugenics' out of favor, Sanger's company, Planned Parenthood, promotes birth control and abortion as "reproductive health services," especially among the poor. The number of abortions for every 1000 live births is 3.5 times higher among black women than it is among white women. Whatever the reason for the disparity, black people are being “exterminated” at a faster rate than any other race in America.
With regard to sex selective and disability abortions, the United States already aborts approximately 67% of its children with Down Syndrome. There are also segments of American society that mimic Asia's practice of aborting girls at a high rate. Every year 300,000 to 700,000 girls are aborted in India because they are girls, and more than half the abortions performed all over the world take place in Asia - approximately 64%.
Fast forward to 2007. The State of Indiana adopts its Sex-Selective and Disability Abortion Ban because state legislators regret Indiana’s past involvement in legally using sterilization as a eugenic tool against its citizens. At that time, the General Assembly, surprisingly, urged the public to educate themselves about the “history of the eugenics movement” and to "oppose such laws in the future." Which reveals that there are (contrary to comments of those critical of Thomas' opinion) others who see the connection between abortion law and eugenics.
Planned Parenthood quickly sues the state of IN saying a woman has a constitutional right to abort her child at any time in the first trimester and for any reason, and two lower courts agree. What was the basis for their decision? Not the Constitution, but Planned Parenthood v. Casey which did not address eugenic abortions but addressed provisions entirely separate from race, sex, and disability. They could not consult the Constitution because as Clarence Thomas reminds us, “[t]he Constitution is silent on abortion.”
In the end, the Supreme Court declined to review this portion of Box v. Planned Parenthood until more cases like these come through other Appeals Courts. This means that the Indiana ban cannot go into effect and the injunction remains babies can be killed in Indiana if the mother dislikes their race, sex, or if they have some disability.
In his conclusion, Justice Thomas reminds the Court that they cannot ignore these type of laws indefinitely and that, "enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement."
Justice Clarence Thomas's main point from the beginning was that abortion, given the scope allowed it by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, has every potential to be used as a tool for eugenic purposes. (Many would argue - and I would agree - that based on the statistics given above, abortion is already being used with eugenics in mind.) Therefore, because abortion has this potential, every state has a compelling interest in adopting abortion bans similar to Indiana's. What is the compelling interest that should support these abortion bans? Children. States should adopt abortion bans because every abortion kills an actual child and it should not be because of sex, race, or potential disability that a child has to die.
Why Did Amazon Cancel Justice Thomas?
Jason L. Riley
Now that another February has come and gone, perhaps Amazon will revert to offering customers a broader and more variegated view of black history.
Early last month Amazon deleted a documentary film about Justice Clarence Thomas from its popular streaming service. Titled “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words,” and culled from more than 30 hours of interviews with its subject, the film recounts Justice Thomas’s rise from poverty in segregated Georgia to Yale Law School and, eventually, to the Supreme Court. Along the way, viewers learn about the justice’s views on race, religion, politics and the role of the judiciary.
The documentary began airing on PBS in May 2020 and streaming on Amazon in October. But it was taken down by Amazon on Feb. 8, according to the director, Michael Pack, and he has never been told why. “Our distributor, who’s the one who made the deal with Amazon, has repeatedly asked them for explanations but they haven’t given any,” Mr. Pack told me by phone this week. “They have the right to pull anything from their site, and they don’t have to give an explanation. So it’s not a contract violation. But many people have complained, and they haven’t put it back up.”
If this episode sounds familiar, it’s because Amazon pulled a similar stunt last fall. Eli Steele’s “What Killed Michael Brown?”—a critique of liberal social policies that was written and narrated by his father, the race scholar Shelby Steele—was slated to stream on Amazon in October, then held up for reasons the company never fully explained. Amazon eventually relented and made the film available, but only after these pages weighed in and made a fuss.
Mr. Pack said that “Created Equal” was doing well on Amazon, so it wasn’t pulled because no one wanted to see it. “For a while our film was, briefly, No. 1 in documentaries. And I think it’s still No. 25 or 30, so it’s been selling,” he said. Notably, he added, less-popular documentaries about Anita Hill and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continue to be available for streaming on Amazon. “So why don’t they offer ‘Created Equal’? There’s obviously customer demand.”
Turning to the law
Thomas left the seminary and enrolled at Holy Cross, a college in Worcester, Massachusetts. There he was a devoted student who also participated on the track team, did volunteer work in the community, and helped found the Black Student Union at Holy Cross. He also met Kathy Ambush, whom he married after graduating in 1971. The couple had one son, but divorced in 1984. (Thomas married his second wife, Virginia Lamp, in 1987.)
Thanks to his excellent academic record, Thomas was admitted to the law schools at Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania. He chose Yale because of the financial support it offered him as part of its affirmative action policy to attract students from racial and ethnic minorities. At Yale he continued to do well academically, and he appeared to fit in socially as well. Yet, years later, he described his "rage" and loneliness at feeling snubbed by white people who viewed him as someone who could only attend Yale through an affirmative action program.