To the Editor:
Re “Rare Glimpse of Thomas, From Bench to Den,” by Adam Liptak (Sidebar column, April 14):
Justice Clarence Thomas’s deprecation of “rights” or “grievances” in favor of “obligations” and “responsibilities” is counterhistorical and counterconstitutional.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that all persons are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights. The Declaration recites a list of grievances against King George III that justified the American Revolution, for example, subordinating the civil power to the military. It established a “duty” to overthrow tyrannical governments that were deaf to grievances.
The Constitution brims with individual rights, like freedom of speech, religion, association, habeas corpus, jury trial, private property and so on. To abandon reverence for rights and respect for grievances is to dishonor the Republic envisioned by the founding fathers.
Bruce Fein
Washington, April 14, 2009
The writer is chairman of the American Freedom Agenda and the author of “Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy.”
Note from KBJ: I'm puzzled by this letter. If you read the New York Times story, this is everything the reporter says about rights:
The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
“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?”
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.”
Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.
Focus on what Justice Thomas said, not on the reporter's characterizations of what he said. Clearly, Justice Thomas is not talking about the Bill of Rights when he says that there is a proliferation of rights. He is talking about rights to such things as air conditioning, cars, telephones, and televisions. Why (he asks) do we talk so much about rights and so little about responsibilities? The reporter obviously has an ideological agenda. He distorted Justice Thomas's words to make him sound antagonistic to the Bill of Rights. The letter writer did the same. Where, for example, did Justice Thomas "deprecate" rights or try to replace them with responsibilities? What a disgrace. I am no longer surprised by the intellectual dishonesty of progressives. Their end is to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, and in their view the end justifies the means. If it takes distortion or character assassination to achieve their ends, so be it.
Note 2 from KBJ: The letter writer evidently thinks that Justice Thomas is antagonistic to rights. This is absurd. The three rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence—to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness—are negative rights, not positive rights. They are rights to be left alone, not rights to have things provided to one. Justice Thomas's examples show that he is antagonistic only to positive rights, for he mentions material things such as air conditioning, cars, telephones, and televisions. Where do these rights come from? They are certainly not conferred by anything in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. At most, these documents confer a right to pursue such things. Isn't it clear that Justice Thomas is not talking about the Constitution at all, much less about the Bill of Rights? He is talking about the attitude, which is sadly pervasive in our society, that there are positive rights to various luxuries. The degree of dishonesty exhibited by the reporter and by the letter writer is disturbing.
Note 3 from KBJ: I just discovered this post at the Volokh Conspiracy while visiting Peg Kaplan's blog. Thanks, Peg!
Note 4 from KBJ: Here is a video of Justice Thomas's talk. After you watch it, read the New York Times story and decide for yourself whether the reporter is honest.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 