Clyburn regrets backing Clarence Thomas: He ‘rebelled against his own background’

BS BULLETIN:

Rep. James Clyburn says his 1991 advocacy for Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation was a “mistake” and says Thomas has “rebelled” against his own background and experiences.
Clyburn had personally testified on Thomas’s behalf before the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling the conservative Republican a “personal and professional friend.”
Moments later Sunday, Clyburn endorsed expanding the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices: “A baker’s dozen would be a good number.”

James Clyburn would like to take back one character reference from 35 years ago.

Clarence Thomas.

NBC’s Kristen Welker confronted the South Carolina Democrat on “Meet the Press” Sunday with archival footage of Clyburn testifying in support of Thomas during his contentious 1991 Supreme Court confirmation battle.

There was Clyburn, considerably younger, telling senators: “It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend Clarence Thomas.”

Clyburn said he had known Thomas for a decade and considered him a “personal and professional friend” despite Thomas’s conservative Republican philosophy.

Welker then asked whether he still stood by it. “Absolutely not,” Clyburn answered.

“I have made mistakes in my life,” he continued, “and that’s one that I made, and I will own up to that mistake.”

One historical point worth cleaning up: Clyburn didn’t vote to confirm Thomas.

Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the Senate, and Clyburn wasn’t elected to the House until 1992. What he did do was personally appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make the case for his friend.

Thomas ultimately squeaked through the Senate 52-48.

Thirty-five years later, Clyburn says he badly misjudged him.

Clyburn told Welker that because of Thomas’s background and experiences, he expected the future justice to respect precedents involving Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.

“I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences,” Clyburn said.

He invoked Thomas’s upbringing by his grandfather in Pin Point, Georgia, and accused the justice of showing “very little sensitivity” to the environment in which his grandfather lived.

That’s quite an accusation. Clyburn isn’t merely saying Thomas developed a judicial philosophy he dislikes. He’s explicitly tying what he believes Thomas should think as a Supreme Court justice to Thomas’s upbringing and experiences.

Thomas, of course, has spent decades arguing almost exactly the opposite — that judges should apply the Constitution and law rather than decide cases based upon personal experiences or desired political outcomes.

And Clyburn wasn’t finished with the Supreme Court.

Moments later, Welker asked whether he supports adding four seats to the current nine-member court. “Yes, I do,” Clyburn answered.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand.”

How many?

“Thirteen is a pretty good number,” Clyburn said. “A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court.”

Clyburn said he wants justices who will “follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours,” accusing the current Supreme Court of having “decided to reverse course and take this country back.”

So Clyburn’s Sunday Supreme Court review can be condensed rather efficiently:

The conservative justice he once personally vouched for was a mistake.

And now he’d like four more justices.

MY QUICK TAKE

Clyburn is perfectly entitled to say he was wrong about Clarence Thomas.

But “rebel against his own background” is a fascinating choice of words.

Thomas was apparently free to become a Supreme Court justice — just not free to reach conclusions James Clyburn thinks someone with Thomas’s background shouldn’t reach.

And if Clarence Thomas won’t cooperate?

Apparently there’s always the baker’s dozen.

DBS WIRE SOURCES