THE DAY I MET CLARENCE THOMAS

Imagine for a moment you’re a baseball player at third base.  Your take your lead.  The batter hits the ball deep to the hole at shortstop, and you break for home.  The throw comes in and you slide under the catcher’s tag.

“Out!”  The umpire yells. 

You’re baffled and angry.   You knew you were safe.  Later, someone tells you the umpire had already pumped his fist before the ball even got to the plate.  “He’d already made the call,” your friend says.  “Whether you were really safe didn’t matter.  He’d made up his mind before you were even there.”

I can think of no better analogy to describe the recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.  In theory, the Court is supposed to be like an umpire.  When a case is heard, they use the Constitution as a strike zone to call balls and strikes.    The whole thing should be fair, honest, and above-board.

Here’s the problem.  Depending on the Court’s political make-up, they can change the strike zone at will.  How they interpret the Constitution can vary wildly.  Depending on their purely ideological views, they may call a pitch down the middle of the plate a ball, and one thrown at your head a strike.

Recently, the Court has overturned 50 years of precedent, and allowed state governments to dictate the practice of women’s health care.  Common sense environmental protections have been scrapped.  The Voting Rights Act has been gutted.  Thomas Jefferson’s dream of separation of church and state has been mocked (do you really think that if a coach had been fired for a post-game Muslim prayer the Court would have done anything?).  Guns are more important than dead babies.  Elections can now be bought, sold, and traded like baseball cards.

And in poll after poll, each of these decisions was contrary to the wishes of the American people.

Strike three, American values.  You’re out and the inning is over.  Next batter—a radical right-wing agenda.  And now the strike zone changes.

So maybe I should go ahead and talk about the title of this post.  For over 30 years, Justice Clarence Thomas has carved out an ever-widening record of judicial extremism.  And for just a few moments, our paths crossed.

Here’s the story.

When I was a Creighton Vice-President, I had a monthly meeting with the University President in his office (of course it was “his” office—Creighton has never had a woman President, because women can’t become Jesuit priests—don’t get me started).  To get to the office, I had to climb a couple hundred stairsteps.  I was running late one morning, as usual, and chugged up the last few steps.

In the hallway was a very large, imposing man in an expensive suit, walking slowly along while he glanced about.  I wondered for moment if he might be lost, so I said “Hi, can I help you find anything?”

He just stared at me for a few seconds, then kept on walking.  I came close to saying, “OK, be an asshole,” but held my tongue.  In retrospect it was probably a good thing.

I had my meeting with the President, then walked back out into the reception area.  Several people were crowded around a little round guy with a big smile, who was standing next to a primly-dressed woman, who was gazing around the room with a plastered-on prom-queen-candidate grin.  She looked to be at least a foot taller than the little round guy.

A woman from the University’s Public Relations office stepped forward and said, “this is Dr. Frey, our Vice President for Health Sciences.   Dr. Frey, I’d like to introduce Justice and Ms. Clarence Thomas.”

I was taken aback.  I’d never been introduced to anyone famous before, and figured it probably wouldn’t happen again (been right so far).  I smiled and said “good to meet you” or something like that.

I must say Thomas was very engaging at first.  He had a warm smile, and said something like, “health sciences?  A lot going on in health care now.”

I smiled and sighed, “Oh, yeah, there’s a lot we’re dealing with right now.”  I was thinking about our medical school, which had been losing money for years, and had recently merged with another local health system.  The whole thing had been a colossal struggle.

But Thomas was thinking of something else.  He smiled even more broadly, leaned forward and said, “yeah a lot more ‘regs now, right?”  At that point, it hit me that he was actually talking about the recently passed Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), for which the Justice would later use every conceivable legal excuse to overturn.  I was a little taken aback. 

“Well, yeah, I suppose,” I shrugged. “But at least 20 million Americans have health care coverage now who didn’t have it just a few years ago.”

I could tell right away it was the wrong thing to say.  Immediately, Thomas’s body stiffened, his smile evaporated, and he glared at me like I’d just puked on his shoes.  There was an awkward moment of silence, then I mumbled something like “well, good to meet you, sir, enjoy your time at Creighton,” or something equally lame.

I was headed toward the door when I noticed the same big imposing dude in the expensive suit (now recognizable as a Thomas bodyguard) standing off in the corner staring at me.  As I walked past, I wanted to say, “yeah, you and the horse you rode in on, pal,” but didn’t.

All of that was years ago.  Since that time, the United States Supreme Court, already lurching toward the right, has veered headlong into far-right extremism.  And at every turn, Justice Thomas has been the most extreme of the extreme.

Perhaps we should change the name of the body from the Supreme Court to the Extreme Court.

In the recent decision that struck down Roe v. Wade (known in legal circles as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health), Thomas opined that the Court’s decision could also set the stage for states banning gay marriage and making contraception illegal.  Apparently, in his view, those would be good things. 

So how did we wind up with a situation where nine individuals, whose elitist backgrounds (all are graduates of either Harvard or Yale Law School) give them the intellectual tools to twist the Constitution into supporting any of their own political beliefs, and effectively overturn anything Congress or the President decides?

Our nation was built around the concept of separation of powers.  The Executive branch, headed by the President, the Legislative branch, headed by Congress, and the Judicial, with the Supreme Court squarely at the top, were meant to “check and balance” one another, like a three-legged chair.

But what happens when one of those legs gets out of balance?  The chair begins to totter, and ultimately collapses.  And anyone watching the Supreme Court can see the collapse coming.

With nine Justices, the opinions (and political views) of just five individuals can overturn any law passed by the people.  That’s exactly what’s happening.

The Constitution provides for a Supreme Court, but doesn’t specify the number of Justices.  The number nine has been around for years, but certainly isn’t sacred (despite what conservatives may insist).  The most serious flaw codified in the Constitution, though, has nothing to do with the Court’s size.  It’s the term of the Justices.

They serve for life, which wasn’t such a big deal when life expectancy in this country was 38 years (as it was in 1776).  But it sure is now.

Appoint a Justice in his or her 40’s today, and you’ll lock in a political view for the next 40-50 years, no matter how the people vote.  And appoint three and you can pretty much determine the Court’s temperament (and, bluntly, their decisions) for the next two generations.  No election required.

So when does a replacement happen?  When a Justice retires or dies, which is purely the luck of the draw.  With our current life expectancy, it’s happening less and less often.  And if the Senate refuses to even consider a nominee?   It gives the next President even more power (feel free to Google “Moscow Mitch McConnell” if you need a reminder).

This, of course, is what occurred under Donald Trump, a president that more Americans voted against than for.  Three hard-right appointments were made, joining the existing above-named Thomas, as well as two other right-wing Justices who’d been appointed by another president who’d also failed to win the popular vote.

In blunt terms, these six individuals have more impact on lurching our nation away from its values than anyone—including the President.

But how did these people get approved by the Senate?  Basically, by lying.

Time and time again, during their confirmation hearings, the recent appointees described Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land” which should stand.  But in truth, they were chomping at the bit to overturn it.

What else were they lying about? Who knows?

I’ve discussed my concerns about the abortion decision earlier, but my friend and colleague Dr. Josh Freeman perhaps described it best.  “Make no mistake:  this Supreme Court decision is that the opinions of some people are worth more than the lives of others”

To say America is getting fed up with all of this would be an understatement.  Much has been written about the low approval ratings of the current President, which stand at 39%.  What many don’t realize is that the approval of the Supreme Court has plummeted to 40%.

That’s right.  The Supreme Court is now as popular as Joe Biden.  

You can vote Joe Biden out of office, if you’d like.  But the Supreme Court?  Sorry, you’re stuck with them for life.

In response to the Court’s abortion decision, the White House issued a rule that requires States to make abortion available in medical emergencies (i.e., to save the life of the mother).

This of course, has made several far-right Attorney’s General furious.  They’ve sued to stop it.  And they may get a test case soon from Indiana.

You’ve probably read about it.  A young girl just shy of her tenth birthday was raped in Ohio (despite what FOX News initially claimed) and became pregnant. The child travelled to Indiana, where an abortion was performed.

For anyone who wasn’t paying attention in high school science class, a ten-year-old girl’s body is not meant to carry a baby.  Complications can be disastrous.   If there’s ever a circumstance where even the most rigid abortion opponent should realize that an abortion is necessary, this is it.

Of course, this apparently doesn’t apply to the Attorney’s General of Indiana and Ohio, who are more intent on investigating the Doctor who performed the procedure than anyone else.  It’s likely legal action could be taken against the physician.  If this occurs, the decision could possibly wind up before the Supreme Court.

Will the Court look that little girl in the eye, tell her that her pregnancy was just her tough luck, then punish the Doctor, setting a precedent that could affect all future childhood rape victims?  Who knows?

But given the veracity of the Court’s recent decisions, I’m not optimistic for that little girl.

So what happens next?  Expanding the Court should certainly be considered, but term limits for each Justice should absolutely be at the top of any reform proposal.  The original Constitution set no term limits for the office of President.  It wasn’t until the Twenty-Second Amendment that the current two-term designation came into place.  Currently, a national effort is under way to pass such an Amendment limiting Congressional terms, as well.

Fine.  But if you’re going to limit two legs of our three-legged chair of checks and balances, you sure as hell should be doing the same for the remaining leg—the Supreme Court.

Currently, nine individuals are effectively determining the laws of this country, under the guise of “interpreting” our laws.  And some of those individuals will continue their assault on democracy for decades.  No matter your political views, this does not bode well for American democracy.

Sooner or later, a current Justice will resign or croak.  When that happens, the makeup of the United States Senate and White House will determine whether American justice begins to move back toward a well-reasoned center, or continues its lurch toward a nationalistic and fascist right.

So vote.  Vote like your life depends on it.  Because it does.

Oh, and one other thing.  That primly dressed woman with the plastered-on-smile I mentioned earlier?  She’s better known as Ginni Thomas.  As wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, she has immediate access to one-ninth of that all-powerful Court, and is considered a cornerstone in a violent, far-right movement that has been labeled “Christian Nationalism.”  She actively worked to overturn a democratic election, texted her “love” for the insurrectionist mob attacking our capitol, and supported a far-right coup against the American government.  She even invoked the name of God to justify her actions.

Apparently, her view of Christianity doesn’t include Exodus 20:7.