August 26, 2026 • 52 mins
In this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz presents part 2 of his one-on-one interview with Justice Clarence Thomas, covering the Justice’s views on constitutional interpretation, precedent, property rights, the Second Amendment, Reconstruction, and the role of the judiciary in protecting individual liberty. Thomas shares personal stories from his early career, discusses the lasting influence of thinkers like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, and explains how his approach to the law has developed during his tenure on the nation’s highest court.
In Part 2 the discussion shifts from Thomas’s personal journey to his judicial philosophy and more than three decades on the Supreme Court. Thomas explains why he believes the Constitution belongs to ordinary Americans, not just judges, lawyers, and legal scholars. The conversation explores Thomas’s views on race, equal protection, affirmative action, and the importance of a colorblind Constitution. He reflects on his intellectual evolution, the influence of economist Thomas Sowell, and the personal experiences that shaped his understanding of liberty, equality, and individual responsibility. Thomas also discusses the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of America’s constitutional system, arguing that rights come from God and are protected by government, not created by it. Drawing on lessons from his grandfather, his life experiences, and decades on the Court, he explains why he believes legal interpretation should remain grounded in history, text, and common sense.
Topics Covered:
- Clarence Thomas’s constitutional philosophy and originalist approach
- The influence of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and intellectual independence
- Race, equal protection, affirmative action, and a colorblind Constitution
- The Declaration of Independence as the foundation of constitutional rights
- Property rights, eminent domain, and the Kelo v. City of New London case
- Reconstruction, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the historical roots of the Second Amendment
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz
X:
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to this special edition of Verdict with Ted
Cruz and my one-on-one conversation with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In part one, we explored the remarkable journey that shaped
the man. Now we turn to the justice, his more
than three decades on the Supreme Court, his approach to
the Constitution, and why he believes its protections belong not
(00:25):
to judges, not to law professors, but to every person.
single American. Here's part two of my conversation with Justice
Clarence Thomas. By any measure, one of your greatest legacies
in the court, and there are many, but has been
(00:47):
on race, and you have been a clarion voice in
your entire tenure on the court for the principle that
the Constitution is does not allow racial distinctions, does not
allow racial discrimination. The Constitution is colorblind and protects everyone.
It's interesting as you tell the story or the analogy
(01:09):
of the library and then the stacks and the books
that you might not be allowed to read. One story
you have told is as a young man, I think
in law school, somebody gave you a copy of a
book by Thomas Sowell And you started to read it
and threw it in the trash and said, if I
remember right, that no black man can think this way.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah. That was Black Education, Myths and Tragedies, I think,
one of his early books. And he laughs about it. Then,
of course, he sent me a copy just to make
sure I had it. But then in the after law school,
I was working in Jeff City. It's one of those
Hobson's choices. That's how I wound up there. The only
(01:50):
job offer I had, but it was the best job
I've ever had.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
But all the fancy law firms wouldn't give you an offer.
You came out of Yale Law School, did really well
in law school.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
It didn't matter. And I always tell them now when
I see them, they're the reason I'm on the court,
because but for them, I'd be a tax lawyer someplace.
And they woke now, but they were fast asleep when
I got out of school. So anyway, God works in
mysterious ways. I wind up in Jeff City.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
So you're working for Jack Danforth, who is the attorney
general in Missouri.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Absolutely wonderful man.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And your classmates were asking, what are you doing going
to work for a Republican?
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
He was the only one who would give you a job.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
He was the only one who gave me a job.
I mean, I had trouble with that. I mean, I
was dying. Remember, I just voted for McGovern. Yeah. You know,
and I thought he was too conservative. So you can
see ideologically where I was. But I go to work
for him. Best job I've ever had.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Well, and you said when you came in, you said, look,
I don't want to work on matters of race. I
don't want to be treated differently than anyone else. And
you joked that he took you very seriously.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
He ignored all of us.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
But you loved that job.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I loved it. It was the best job I've ever had.
$ 11, 000 a year. And he promised. He said, I can
give you more work for less money than anybody in
the country. And that turned out to be a blessing.
But at any rate, that office, the way that he
ran that office was just wonderful, even-handed. One of the
(03:24):
people I met who became a very dear friend was
a quadriplegic from West Point, Nebraska. And went to University
of Missouri Law School, graduated, ordered the co-wife, but had
suffered from polio and was a quadriplegic. Just a very, very,
very dear friend. He calls me up one day and
(03:46):
he said, Clarence, there's another black guy out here like you.
And his name is Thomas Sowell. And it was Thomas Sowell.
And it was a book review in the Wall Street Journal.
And it was on race and economics. And I obtained
copies of that. And it became just sort of the
(04:07):
beginning of the long journey. intellectual walk back of thinking
about these things. And I met him at Washington University
on a panel with Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was
a professor in the late 70s. And then when I
came here in 79, I think I met him again
(04:30):
either in 79 or 80 when he was making the
rounds with Hill staffers. And we've been friends since the
early 1980s.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
By the way, for what it's worth, I'm urging the
White House to award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
I hope they do so. I've publicly called for that.
I'm trying to make that happen because I think that
would be very appropriate.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Well, I think it would be deserved. He is a great,
great man and one of the great thinkers.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I've never met him, but I've admired him. He's brilliant
and courageous.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Well, he's courageous. He and I met him. I met
Walter Williams back then when I got here.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I met Walter Williams when I was in high school.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Is that right?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yeah, he was inspiring even when I was a kid.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Brash, but he's... And there was another gentleman that you
don't know that's also passed away, like Walter, who's on...
Dunn was also very quiet, but a libertarian and was very,
very helpful. But anyway, the whole point is that in
(05:43):
Jefferson City, again, I go back to what I said
at the very beginning, that things that initially seem like
a negative, you know, you can't get a job, so
you wind up in Jefferson City, turn out to be
a blessing. And what I say in retrospect is that
God closed all the doors that I should not have
(06:04):
gone through and left one door open, my Hobson's choice,
and turned out to be the best job I've ever had.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
All right, let me take a quick second. I want
to talk to you about how you can get involved
right now to help the people in Israel and the
rising anti-Semitism that's happening not only in the U.S., but
around the world every day. And the Jewish people continue
to pay the price from growing threats against Jewish communities,
attacks of violence, harassment and intimidation. Many Jewish families are
(06:32):
living with fear simply because they are Jewish. Synagogues, schools,
and community centers continue strengthening security as hatred spreads far
beyond the headlines. And that's why the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews is working every day in Israel and
around the world, providing security, emergency assistance, food, and critical
care for vulnerable Jewish communities. For more than 40 years,
(06:54):
the fellowship has stood alongside the Jewish people, delivering practical
support when it is needed the most. Hatred, it continues
to spread, but compassion and action can make a world
of difference. So I want you to join us. The
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and me in doing
one simple thing, praying for the safety of the Jewish people,
(07:16):
for peace in Israel, and for an end to anti-Semitism. Together,
we can remind God's people that they are not alone.
If you want to know what to pray for, you
can stand with Israel in prayer today by visiting PrayIFCJ.org.
That is PrayIFCJ.org.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Ultimately, you're in the AG's office. You go get a
job in corporate America at Monsanto, which paid you a
good chunk of money but was not rewarding and you
were not happy with corporate America. And then Jack Danforth
has gone to the Senate and you go work for
him in the Senate. And you're Capitol Hill staffer and
(07:58):
you go to a conference with Thomas Sowell.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah, he invited me personally to that in San Francisco.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
And at the time, you're a Republican staffer, but you're
on the journey. One of the things I try to
do in the book is chronicle the intellectual journey and
awakening from an angry left-wing radical to a principled conservative.
That's a pretty big shift. And reading was an important
(08:28):
part of it. Questioning was an important part of it.
But you've described how you're sitting at, at a lunch
table with, with Juan Williams, the reporter, having what you
thought was a conversation. And, and, uh, it was one
of your first interactions with, with the press and, and
it ended up having a big feature article in the
(08:50):
Washington Post describing you as the black conservative, which, which
was a pretty startling thing for you.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, I'd never called myself conservative. I, I've, you know, the, um,
That was a way of character. They called us black
conservatives in order to dispose of us. They called Tom
Sowell that, Walter Williams, Jay Parker, who was another dear friend,
has passed away. But I was shocked. Remember now, I'm
(09:22):
32 years old. I'm a Hill staffer. I've never been
in the press. I had just made my first trip
to California.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
You got the inkling that there was going to be
something on you when they sent a photographer to take
a picture.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
I was sharing an office with three other staffers, and
this photographer shows up from the post. And December 16, 1980,
there's my smiling face on the op-ed page. And then
my whole life changed. And the attacks, the negativity.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
And there is a nastiness.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Ostracism.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
As a black conservative that I don't think anyone else
experiences you get some of it as an Hispanic who's
a conservative because I'm not supposed to be a conservative
but you're really not supposed to be a conservative and
there's part of the reason I wanted to write the
book is the vitriol that has been directed at you
is different look Justice Scalia you knew him extremely well
(10:19):
he was a brilliant, extraordinarily principled. He never had the
kind of hate directed to him that you did. And
the left, they view you, a black man is not
allowed to think that way. You're a traitor. And there's
an ugliness to that.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Yeah, well, I mean, that's, you know, I grew up, again,
I've been fortunate to have had misfortunes. And one of
the things you learned during segregation is there was this
idea that, boy, don't you know your place. And that's
the same thing. I mean, these are the same, some
of the worst people that you would meet, like the progressives.
(11:00):
That's why I mentioned people like Woodrow Wilson, one of
the early progressives.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Who was a vicious racist.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, but see, underneath that, and Paul Johnson makes the
point that you scratch the surface of things like the
Marxists and the socialists. That's what you find because they
have to categorize people. So I understand that. But I
crossed that bridge in my early 30s that I accepted
(11:30):
that this is the way they were going to treat me.
This is what was going to happen. This is what
would happen, and who knew where it would leave, but
God would take care of that part. But the fact
that they have all this vitriol, to me, is a
white flag that they have no argument. When you start calling..
Speaker 1 (11:53):
If they think you're wrong, persuade you.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Look, I'm open to reason, but I will not be
told what to do. No one cajoles me, no one
makes me do anything. Slavery is over. But there's this
sense that don't you know what you're supposed to think?
And that is with me, that is the wrong argument.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Well, and related to that, one of the things that
you have really powerfully written and spoken about is with
affirmative action and racial quotas, it brings with it a stigma.
You rather famously put a sticker of 15 cents on
your Yale law degree from a cigar box because, and
(12:41):
you talked about coming out of Yale, but not being
able to get a job. And look, I went to
school at a different time than you did, but I'll
tell you, as an Hispanic, I still remember this one
supercilious liberal in law school explaining that everyone who wasn't
a white man, was on the law review because of
(13:01):
affirmative action. That was the only reason anyone could possibly
do well is because they were giving us this gift.
And it was infuriating.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
You know, I've heard, I've been, there are many, many
slights along the way. But it doesn't make you wrong.
These are little bumps in the road. And what I
compare it to, again, I compare it to what My
grandparents went through. Like, just take my grandfather. Yeah. If
(13:34):
I'm going to complain, right, I have to look at him,
at a man who didn't complain. He never knew his father.
His mother dies when he's six or seven, maybe eight.
And then he goes to live with his grandmother, who's
a freed slave who lives on a part of the
(13:56):
plantation that they're from.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Just pause for a second and think about the marvel
of America, that your grandfather who raised you was raised
by his grandmother who was a freed slave. And now
you are the second longest serving Supreme Court justice in
American history and in a couple of years will be
(14:21):
the longest serving. That is– it's one of the things– Look,
those who point to the flaws in our nation's history,
they're not wrong. Our racial history in particular has been
a history of injustice, and slavery was grotesque. But I
agree with Dr. King that the arc of history is long,
(14:43):
and it bends towards justice. And that journey was possible
because of the principles America was built on, even if
it took us decades and even centuries to begin living
up to it.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, you know, he always, my grandfather would talk about
don't throw out the Ten Commandments because people don't obey them.
There's nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. It's just we
have weaknesses or for whatever reasons we don't comply. And
I think sometimes when you're angry and you see suffering
(15:19):
and difficulties, you are willing to throw everything out, the
baby with the bathwater. And as you get older, you
can be more discerning. And one of the things I
think that's unfortunate is that the people who should know
better haven't stood up and defended those principles and asserted
(15:41):
them and then tried to live up to them and
not be hypocritical and not to sacrifice the principles for
a share of the power, for a share of the
loot that they're getting from the country or whatever. And
so one of the things that I tried to do
when I was teasing out the speech at the University
of Texas is to make this point. Two things that
(16:04):
I wanted to talk about was the fact that here
you had uneducated people who believed that God made them equal.
And you had Irish nuns, immigrants, that believed strongly that
in God's eyes, we're all equal. And this was not
(16:27):
to be debated. No matter what the laws around us said,
this was not debatable. So now that means if there
are Irish immigrants and uneducated people who have no formal
education believe this, my point was simply that it must
(16:47):
be self-evident. Otherwise, how else would they know? The other
part of it that I was interested in is there
are a lot of nice words in the Declaration, for example.
But what do they pledge? Their lives, their fortune, and
their sacred honor. And this is after what the king says,
(17:11):
I'm going to hang all of you.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
And that was not theoretical.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
No, no, I know it. He was not happy. But
at any rate, my point is if you end it
by saying, I'm willing to die for this. Now, that
gives value to what you just said. In your wedding vows,
you say, I do, and you mean it. You said
you've been married, what, 29 years?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
25.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
25 years. So that gives content to your wedding vows. Yeah.
When I said, I do, to my wife, that gives content. Otherwise,
it's just nice words. And I think one of the things,
and this goes back to my point about leaving the seminary,
Do you really mean it? Do you really believe as
(17:54):
a church what you said you believe? And it was
the gap between that, what you said, the church said,
and what the leadership seemed to a 19-year-old to believe.
And I think in this country now, think about it.
When last have you had a leader that said something
(18:15):
that is the equivalent I pledge my life, my property,
my fortune, and my sacred honor.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
So you referenced the speech you gave at University of Texas.
I want to commend all the listeners here. Go and
listen to that speech. It really was an extraordinary speech.
I'm proud of UT. I spent a couple of years
on the faculty as an adjunct law professor there. And look,
most law schools are so left-wing. I'm proud of UT
for inviting you there. The president, Jim Davis, is a
(18:46):
good friend.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Had you there, but it really is an important speech
and conversation, and if folks haven't listened to it, they should.
What I want to do in the interest of time,
there are additional chapters in your life from being a
Hill staffer to an assistant secretary of the Department of
Education to the chairman of the EOC and the Reagan
administration to a court of appeals judge on the D.C.
(19:12):
Circuit to going through one.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Of..
Speaker 1 (19:17):
If not the most brutal confirmation hearing of any justice.
You and Brett Kavanaugh can arm wrestle for who had
the rougher time, but in many ways, and I talk
about this in the book, how what Justice Kavanaugh went
through was a replay of the playbook that you were
subjected to. I want to skip over all of those periods,
(19:37):
although I recount them in detail in the book. And
I want to go to after you are confirmed. and
you're sworn in and you're in your early 40s and
suddenly you're a Supreme Court justice and your autobiography ends
with your being a justice so it tells your life
(20:00):
story but then does not cover your jurisprudence I want
to start with just a human thing what's it like
the first day you're a justice. You walk in, like
just what's day one of being a Supreme Court justice?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Well, you feel a little small. And like, what the
heck am I doing here? Which is still a question.
But this is, you know, the, as I said, just
Lord grant me the wisdom to know what's right and
(20:35):
the courage to do it. That has been a constant
plea of mine. And it is what brought me back
to the church, stopping at first St. Nicholas, then sometimes St. Mary's,
and sometimes St. Joe, to just ask for the wisdom
(20:56):
and to know what is right and the courage to
do it. But you know, it is just the, you
pledge to I gave President Bush my promise. I took
an oath. He said, can you call him as you
(21:16):
see him? He asked me that in Kennebunkport, July 1, 1991.
I said, I can. And that's what I've lived up to.
My grandfather, when I asked him when I was being
attacked in the early 80s, 1982, I said, what should
I do? He said, boy, you got to stand up
for what you believe in. It's pretty simple. And I
(21:39):
must say, I'm on the other side of that spectrum now,
but I was treated royally, fabulously, by my new colleagues.
Your old boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, Stevens, O'Connor,
a great woman who doesn't get the credit she deserves,
Justice Kennedy. And now I'm on the other side of
(22:02):
it where I have newer colleagues, wonderful teachers, And brilliant
young people like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, you mentioned. We
have Amy Barrett. And then Sam Alito and I were
at Yale together. Just a wonderful, wonderful group.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
You were classmates at Yale.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
He was a year behind.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
He was a year behind you, but you didn't know
each other.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
He's a funny guy. He's brilliant. He was always nerdy.
Princeton guy like you, right? Yeah. And so... I said, Sam,
how come we were there two years together? Why weren't
we friends? Clarence, you were scary. I'm so glad they
didn't have these phones where you could take a lot
(22:46):
of pictures. I wore bib overalls throughout law school and
combat boots. It was awful. But, you know, you have
just the chief has been a good friend. But my
point is simply this, that, you know, I was embraced there.
It was a different generation. It's the World War II,
(23:09):
Byron White. They were just wonderful people. They were very
kind to me. You know, the courts changed a bit
now since the Dobbs League. Back then there was a trust. Yes.
There was an honor. Even as you disagreed, there were
(23:30):
lines you did not cross, and I like that. These
people were the age of my mother and older. And
so it was a different era. And now it's a
different generation now. But the point is that you have
(23:53):
equally good people who are there. I mean, I loved,
I knew some of them as law clerks. They've become
very dear friends. And I hope to be a model
to them as the older members of the court who
were there when I arrived were to me.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
So of all the justices who have served on the court,
I think you are the most willing to reconsider precedent
and to think of an issue anew, which is in
some ways to think about it as it was, in fact,
in many ways to think of it as it was
originally understood. Mm-hmm. and that, you know, your opinion writing is,
(24:38):
you write straightforward opinions in ordinary English. You don't tend
to use fancy highfalutin words, but your opinions are written
so that the regular person can read them and understand
what you're saying, and I think there's a workmanship quality
to your opinions. I analogize it to a farmer or
(25:02):
someone building a home. And you draw that same analogy.
Why do you think it is that you are the
most willing to reconsider precedent?
Speaker 2 (25:12):
You know, I start with something you and I, I think,
have talked about over the years, and that is that
I start with something that has to make sense.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
The quote from your grandfather, if it don't make no
damn sense, it don't make no damn sense.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
And I keep that in my office because the– you can–
he would call some of these professors fast talking. Yeah.
And you think about it. We have had throughout history
court intellectuals who can make all sorts of justifications for
(25:49):
things and theories and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And I've been blessed because I can sort through the
theories and I read lots and lots and lots of books.
And I've been at it a long time. And I
have young people who have that energy and they say,
we're going to go find the answer. Now, it may
not be what we want, but we're going to go
(26:10):
look for it. And what we find in many instances
is it's been a theory. So you can have, you know,
you can, deductive reasoning. You have a theory and you
work down. Or you can have inductive, which any rancher
or farmer uses, which is you do something and it's
experience and you keep generalizing up to something more general.
(26:34):
And that's the world I grew up. The latter is
the world I grew up in. I cannot explain it
to that guy on the ranch. Yep. And if he says, boy,
that don't make no sense. You know, he should be a,
he or When I go out to ordinary people, they
should be able to understand their Constitution.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
And by the way, ordinary people, one thing people may
not know, you do that a lot. You and Jenny
go out in your RV, like in the summertime, you
head across the country and are in Walmart parking lots
just hanging out with regular people.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Well, I'm Bucky's now. All right, now as a Texan.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
That makes me happy. Bucky's is a destination.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
But, you know, I love, I grew up with... as
my granddad said, PO folks. And that's the world I like.
I like people who work with their hands. I like
people who are regular people. That's my preferred world. And,
(27:34):
you know, I was, my wife laughs at me because
I was, my, our motor home is, motor coach is
35 years old. So I like the old buses. And
so you hang out with the guys who do work
on old buses. And, I got to spend time with
one of them this in the December and we're like,
(27:54):
we take all the wheels off and you're up. So
I said, that was happy as I could be because
you're under the air. You got all the shocks, all
the airbags, you know, the lines he's, he's showing you
all these things, the valves. And it was just, I
could not, I wish I could spend two weeks there
instead of two days. But, The point is, it's their constitution.
(28:15):
It's that truck driver's constitution. It's that school teacher's constitution.
It's not the preserve of court intellectuals and law professors.
And we've turned it into that. We've over-intellectualized it. This
is a point that Murray Rothbard makes in his book,
Conceived in Liberty. We've taken something that was passionately achieved
(28:37):
and that was believed in passionately, and we turned it
into this thing that you need an oracle. to explain.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
The Federalist Papers were newspaper editorials.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
And they were only in New York, by the way.
Those were basically Hamilton and those guys. There's a big
difference between Hamilton and some of the more radical guys,
like a Sam Adams, which is more than a beer,
by the way.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I will admit there was an amusing exchange of one
commentator on the left who was on TV saying, James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, can you imagine those people overthrowing the government?
And I couldn't help but respond, yes, yes, I can.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
It kind of happened. One of the things you have
been really eloquent on, and I think profoundly influential on
is the– look, the Constitution is the foundational document that
created our government. But you have focused a great deal
(29:51):
on the Declaration of Independence and– Why is the Declaration
so important and what is the relevance that people should
know about it?
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Well, the Constitution sets up the government, the form of
the government. But what precedes that? What does it mean?
What defines you, your rights? How do they view your rights?
Where do they come from? And where does the government
come from? And it sets the order right. Just take
(30:24):
it simple. It says your rights come from God, basically,
from nature's God. And then from that, you give up
some of those God-given natural rights in order to be governed.
And what does that lead to? That leads to the Constitution.
(30:47):
I was pointing out to my clerks the other day,
because you get these Second Amendment cases. And I said,
you know, why do we keep saying there's a Second
Amendment right? The Second Amendment says the right to bear
arms shall not be infringed. It assumes a right. It
(31:08):
doesn't grant a right. And so you can go First Amendment,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Where does that come from?
And that's what I was interested in, that what establishes
this whole notion of liberty. What establishes this order of rights?
And so it matters if you think the government is
(31:31):
the primary giver of, grantor of rights, and you receive
rights and benefits from the government versus you have the
rights and the government receives its authority from you. And
I think that that order... being able to establish that
(31:52):
in each case is important. And if you go back,
and that explains Justice Scalia's writings on the structure of
the Constitution being the safeguard of these rights that you
have that are antecedent and that are transcended. So I
focus on that to always get the order right. When
(32:15):
you farm, every farmer knows, like when you plant, or
when you plow, I don't know if you've ever plowed.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
I'm a city boy, so I've watched it on TV.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
So my granddaddy said, boy, he would always say, and
he put a little cuss word in there from time
to time, he said, and those rows better be straight.
So you have to take your first row, and it
has to be absolutely straight. Then you put your tire
in a groove where the plows, especially if you're using
a dish plow, and they go different ways. You go
(32:48):
and you follow that. So now every subsequent row is straight. Well,
going back to your point about precedent, what if that
first row is crooked? Will you keep going, pretending that
it's straight, or do you go back and make it straight?
That's why you say, well, I'm not accepting precedent. If
(33:09):
something doesn't make any sense, what am I going to do?
Am I a fool for following that or not questioning it?
I taught a course on stare decisis just for this point.
It makes sense when you have this unwritten laws and
when you have traditions and when barons are ruling on
cases in these rural areas in England. But when you
(33:31):
have positive law, when it's written down and you can
see the deviation, who's the fool? You follow something that's absurd.
Why would you follow something that's absurd?
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Well, look, a great example of that, in a case
I talk about quite a bit in the book, is
the Kelo case, where Kelo involved a city that was
condemning a woman's home.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
That they had for 100 years. Yes. This tiny house,
regular person's house, not a mansion, and for a public purpose,
not a public use. And that started in southwest D.C.,
by the way, the precedent for that. And the court
was willing to say that the public purpose was the
(34:18):
equivalent of public use. Well, a public purpose could be
to increase your tax base.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Well, and actually, as I was driving over here to
do this, I wanted to look. I pulled up the
language of the Fifth Amendment. And the relevant prohibition at
the end of it is, nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation. So that's the
(34:44):
actual language. And Kelo, unfortunately, it was 5-4, the majority
said that the city of New London, Connecticut could take
her home. not for a highway or a road or
a city building, but for a parking lot for a
planned Pfizer building. And you dissented, you dissented, and it
(35:09):
focused on the words public use versus purpose. And explain
that distinction to us.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Well, purpose is a very broad term.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
And the court and its precedent had basically turned use
into purpose.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
But there's another thing. principle or that we have followed
for years, which is you don't take, the government doesn't
take property, private property from person A and give it
to private person B. That's not a public use. So,
but going back to your point that a public use
(35:44):
would be a park, it'd be a hospital, it'd be
a highway, et cetera. Something that the public uses. A
public purpose doesn't necessarily, is much, much broader. So just
imagine you have a somewhat blighted area. But suddenly it's
attractive to people with lots of money. And a city decides, well,
(36:10):
we'd like to increase our tax base. Well, there are
all these young people with lots of money who want
to build these McMansions or these high-end $ 2 or $ 3
million structures. Well, the public purpose would be to increase
that tax base, but that's not a public use. And
now you've given people who have authority to take your
(36:34):
property a much broader way and much more power to
take an individual's property. Now, why is the issue? I
took quite a bit of property at Yale for this reason.
If you go back to Georgia, if you go back
to the South, you go to places like South Carolina,
There was all this land that blacks owned in the
(36:56):
way that my family received land over the years. It
was called heirs' property. Everybody owns it. Nobody's really in charge. Well,
a lot of that land, there were aggressive efforts to
use that land for developments. It could be for resorts
(37:19):
in Hilton Head. It could be for strategic purposes in
Harris Neck, Georgia. It could be for conservation in places
where blacks were subsistence farmers, like in McIntosh, Georgia. So
my only point is simply this, that the word, if
(37:39):
you want to protect the property, you have to stick
to the words in the Constitution, or it sort of
spreads out. to broader powers that were not intended and
public purpose allows it. Plus that word appears no place
in the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
Well, I will say, even though you were in dissent,
you did not command the majority in the court. I
think over time, the view you articulated has prevailed and
it's persuaded Texas and many other states have enacted laws
to prevent the taking of public property for public purposes.
And it was inspired, uh, inspired by your very, you know,
(38:19):
Justice O'Connor used an effective analogy in dissent in that
case where she said under this reasoning, the government could
condemn every Motel 6 and to build a Ritz-Carlton.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah. And she's right. And she and I, and remember
she comes from a rancher.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
I think the, just think about it, hand in hand
with liberty. Uh, you had, they, they were traveling companion,
liberty and property.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
Wherever you see it, if you look at the due
process clause, what does it protect?
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Life, liberty, and property.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Okay. Wherever you see it. And that was my grandfather.
What did he say? These were PO. He said a
little bit of land, you get to raise crops, you
get to build a little place to live. Uh, you
get to raise some animals. Okay. The property was a
part of your way to take care of yourself. So
(39:21):
liberty and property, it was the fruit of your labor.
So you worked in the cornfield, you planted it, you
took care of it, you harvested it. It's yours. And
the land is yours. You earned it. And I think
you see throughout the founding all those things that those
(39:41):
were always paired, liberty and property. And we treat it
as though it's a benefit from the government. Yep. rather
than a right that transcends the government and is to
be protected from the government.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
One thing you did there just a minute ago that
is really powerful and that is a consistent theme of
your jurisprudence is you understand the rights protected in the
Constitution with an understanding of the context of history. So
when you're talking about condemning land or property for public
(40:18):
purpose rather than use, you quickly brought it to when
government power is used, historically it has been used over
and over by the rich and powerful against the more
vulnerable in society, often against African Americans or Hispanics or
people who don't necessarily have the ability to defend themselves
(40:40):
against government power. That's something also that you've powerfully done
in the Second Amendment context. And one of the things
that you've said, you and I, when we were sitting
down doing interviews, you talked about the importance of Reconstruction,
that if you're going to understand American history and the Constitution,
(41:01):
you've got to understand Reconstruction. Tell us about that.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Well, it's everything. I mean, it's, you know, I think Reconstruction,
why did you have Reconstruction? I mean, because you had
the Civil War. You had slaves that were freed. You
had the South that was not going to do what
it should do. And so you basically had the military
in the South. And after Reconstruction, of course, you got
(41:27):
the Redeemers. You got the Redeemers. You have the former
Confederates who've been disempowered, disenfranchised, and they start forming these
vigilante groups. And who are they going after? Are they
going after the Republicans in the South, they're going after
particularly the freedmen. And what's the argument? If you just
(41:50):
take a look at it, you'd see they would maraud.
They would intimidate. They would lynch. And there was a
big difference. But the 14th Amendment is passed. And the
whole point is to now make these slave citizens. But
there's something further going on. If you look at the
(42:11):
debates in the 14th Amendment, the argument is these people
have a right to defend themselves. Now, the radical Republicans
felt that with these rights, privileges or immunities, also brings
the right to bear arms. They have a right to
(42:33):
defend themselves from these marauders. And anyone who lives in
a rural area, who lives in the South, You could
be in Texas, in rural Texas. Everybody is armed for
a variety of reasons. To defend themselves, to hunt, etc.
And if you live in rural Georgia, I didn't know
anybody who didn't have at least one weapon. And you
(42:57):
could have a mad dog. You could have a six-foot rattlesnake.
You could have a moccasin. You could have all sorts
of things. And you could have an opportunity to kill
an animal for food. But my point is that the
radical Republicans understood that without that right to defend themselves..
Speaker 1 (43:19):
And fundamentally, it's a right to life, a right to
protect your life, your kids' life, your family.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
Well, that was the point. That was the Freedmen Bureau.
If you look at the reports, they're getting killed down
here with the Knights of Camellia, the Ku Klux Klan, etc.,
And so you get the 14th Amendment. Right. And defining them,
of course, answering Taney and responding to his notion that
(43:47):
blacks cannot be citizens. But this also brings in the
privileges or immunities clause.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
And Taney was the author of Dred Scott, which if
there's a decision that is more disgraceful than Plessy versus Ferguson,
it was Dred Scott.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
Well, it is... For a lot of different reasons. I've
spent a lot of time on Dred Scott and the
history around Dred Scott. But the whole point is that
here's a man who's trying to figure out a way
to say that no way blacks could ever be citizens
(44:22):
of this country, just by their very nature. And, of course,
we revisit that old notion in the birthright case last term. Yep.
in a different way and for different reasons. But the
14th Amendment in this country is critical because it's basically
the second founding. And so you have to understand that.
(44:43):
So what I think I owe my fellow citizens is
not just to read the words of the Constitution, but
to try to understand not just the 14th Amendment, but
the revolution, leading up to the revolution, the history of England,
the things that influence it. The Civil War, the post-Civil War,
(45:03):
the Reconstruction era, and you may have to read people
you don't necessarily agree with.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (45:08):
For example, I read and reread Eric Foner on Reconstruction. Now,
he's a revisionist historian, but he's fine. He does a
great job of explaining Reconstruction and a lot of these problems,
and I admire the work that he's done. At the
same time, you may not agree. with the revolutionary period
(45:28):
with Murray Rothbard because he's a libertarian. But he's written
a couple of thousand pages on this and conceived in liberty.
And it's worth reading because it gives you that sort
of granular understanding of the revolutionary period.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
But you told me a story about Justice Breyer when
he was robbed. And if you just share that story.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Poor Steve Breyer. He's such a good man. So, Steve,
this is a joke, and I hope I don't offend Steve.
He's a very decent man. We spent a lot of
years sitting next to each other. What a fun time.
But at any rate, so Steve Breyer, he'd been robbed,
and he didn't want it to be public. He didn't
(46:20):
want the attention. And Nevis, where they have little property there.
And he said, so he's telling the story to a
number of us, a number of others as I walk
in the room, that he turns to me because I
wasn't there at the beginning. He said, Clarence, I had
a question for you. You're on your porch. You're playing
(46:43):
bridge with another couple, you and your wife, and a
guy walks up with a machete. What would you do?
And I said, I don't play bridge. He said, okay, okay,
you're playing poker. And the guy walks over to the machete,
and he says, he demands money. What would you do?
(47:06):
He said, I don't play poker. I don't play cards, Steve.
He said, what would you be doing on your porch?
I said, cleaning my guns. And I said, do you
want some ketchup with that? But at any rate, he
is such, I hope that doesn't offend him, he is
the nicest man. You know, I... And that goes back.
(47:26):
I just, let me just say a word. You ask about,
you know, the, the court and the work, et cetera.
It's a human institution. And I've been blessed because I
get along with the members of the court. Uh, we
have a different set of colleagues now, uh, but they're wonderful.
You've got, uh, Neil and Louise Gorsuch, the delightful, just
(47:49):
wonderful couple. Um, And, you know, it takes a few
years to get your legs, and he's done that. Brett
Kavanaugh was just the nicest person. He and his wife, Ashley,
she's a Texan. You've got the Alitos, Martha Ann and Sam. Again,
and the Chief and Jane. I mean, it's a wonderful
(48:13):
group of people. And it was when I came on
the court. It's different now because I'm the oldest member
as opposed to They're the youngest. As the New York
Times said, the youngest and the cruelest. But, you know,
it's just, I've just changed perspective. But still, it's a
human institution with decent people on board.
Speaker 1 (48:32):
So I saw Brett and Ashley at Lindsey Graham's funeral.
And they've been friends. I've known them for 30 years.
Ashley was on the. 2000 George W. Bush campaign with
Heidi and me. So we were all young staffers on
that campaign. So I saw the two of them at
Lindsey's funeral. I actually told Brett at the funeral a
story during his confirmation hearing when Lindsey Graham went off.
(48:58):
And I think it's his– Lindsey was a dear friend
of mine and it was his finest moment I believe
as a senator where he unloaded on the unfairness of
what was happening and My mother had not previously been
a fan of Lindsey Graham's. And in the hearing, she
texts me and she says, okay, I now love Lindsey Graham.
(49:24):
And she goes online and gives him 40 bucks. And
so I walk over to Lindsey, I pull out my
phone and I show him the text from my mom.
And Lindsey is cracking up laughing.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
Well, you know, it is really interesting. And that goes
to our country. People like people who stand up for
what's right.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
Amen.
Speaker 2 (49:43):
And as I said to you from the beginning, I
do not understand a lot about this town. I don't
know who has the time for all this animus toward
other people. I don't spend any of my day on
that sort of thing. But the lying that takes place,
the attacks on financial disclosure, it was laughable in one way,
(50:04):
but just painful to just the lies.
Speaker 1 (50:08):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (50:09):
But you and Mike Lee and the others who stood
up are dearly appreciated because we could not believe the
inundation of just misstatements and falsehoods. And we don't have
the capacity at the court to defend ourselves. We don't
(50:29):
have a bully pulpit or anything like that. Most of
us just simply are doing our jobs. And we can disagree.
In the old days, I first became aware of the
court when they're riding along US 17 between Savannah and
(50:51):
the farm. There were these impeach Earl Warren signs after
Brown v. Board of Education. And so I understand that
people have different ways of reacting. to the work that
we do, but this current environment that we're in is quite,
(51:12):
excuse me, quite different from signs saying impeach Earl Warren.
Speaker 1 (51:16):
Well, Justice, let me say thank you. Thank you for,
you've been incredibly generous with your time. Thank you for
joining us on this podcast. Thank you for spending the
time in the interviews to write this book. And look,
I've said this before, but you are a true American hero.
And I want to say to the folks listening, you're
a young person, there are a lot of young people
(51:37):
that listen to this podcast. If you are a young
person and you're looking for someone to admire, someone to emulate,
someone to walk along a path and be inspired by,
you would be very hard pressed to find a better
role model than Clarence Thomas. And that's why I wrote
(51:57):
this book, because I think you are an incredibly historic
significant human being and leader with courage and principle, and
I am grateful. You can order the book, goingfurther.com, pre-order
the book, buy it for your family. I think you'll
like it. I think you'll learn. I hope in this
(52:21):
podcast you've seen why I admire Justice Thomas so much
and why I think you should as well. And thank
you very much, and we'll see you on the next podcast.
Thank you, Justice.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
Thank you.
Welcome back to this special edition of Verdict with Ted
Cruz and my one-on-one conversation with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In part one, we explored the remarkable journey that shaped
the man. Now we turn to the justice, his more
than three decades on the Supreme Court, his approach to
the Constitution, and why he believes its protections belong not
(00:25):
to judges, not to law professors, but to every person.
single American. Here's part two of my conversation with Justice
Clarence Thomas. By any measure, one of your greatest legacies
in the court, and there are many, but has been
(00:47):
on race, and you have been a clarion voice in
your entire tenure on the court for the principle that
the Constitution is does not allow racial distinctions, does not
allow racial discrimination. The Constitution is colorblind and protects everyone.
It's interesting as you tell the story or the analogy
(01:09):
of the library and then the stacks and the books
that you might not be allowed to read. One story
you have told is as a young man, I think
in law school, somebody gave you a copy of a
book by Thomas Sowell And you started to read it
and threw it in the trash and said, if I
remember right, that no black man can think this way.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Yeah. That was Black Education, Myths and Tragedies, I think,
one of his early books. And he laughs about it. Then,
of course, he sent me a copy just to make
sure I had it. But then in the after law school,
I was working in Jeff City. It's one of those
Hobson's choices. That's how I wound up there. The only
(01:50):
job offer I had, but it was the best job
I've ever had.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
But all the fancy law firms wouldn't give you an offer.
You came out of Yale Law School, did really well
in law school.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
It didn't matter. And I always tell them now when
I see them, they're the reason I'm on the court,
because but for them, I'd be a tax lawyer someplace.
And they woke now, but they were fast asleep when
I got out of school. So anyway, God works in
mysterious ways. I wind up in Jeff City.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
So you're working for Jack Danforth, who is the attorney
general in Missouri.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Absolutely wonderful man.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And your classmates were asking, what are you doing going
to work for a Republican?
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
He was the only one who would give you a job.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
He was the only one who gave me a job.
I mean, I had trouble with that. I mean, I
was dying. Remember, I just voted for McGovern. Yeah. You know,
and I thought he was too conservative. So you can
see ideologically where I was. But I go to work
for him. Best job I've ever had.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Well, and you said when you came in, you said, look,
I don't want to work on matters of race. I
don't want to be treated differently than anyone else. And
you joked that he took you very seriously.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
He ignored all of us.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
But you loved that job.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
I loved it. It was the best job I've ever had.
$ 11, 000 a year. And he promised. He said, I can
give you more work for less money than anybody in
the country. And that turned out to be a blessing.
But at any rate, that office, the way that he
ran that office was just wonderful, even-handed. One of the
(03:24):
people I met who became a very dear friend was
a quadriplegic from West Point, Nebraska. And went to University
of Missouri Law School, graduated, ordered the co-wife, but had
suffered from polio and was a quadriplegic. Just a very, very,
very dear friend. He calls me up one day and
(03:46):
he said, Clarence, there's another black guy out here like you.
And his name is Thomas Sowell. And it was Thomas Sowell.
And it was a book review in the Wall Street Journal.
And it was on race and economics. And I obtained
copies of that. And it became just sort of the
(04:07):
beginning of the long journey. intellectual walk back of thinking
about these things. And I met him at Washington University
on a panel with Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was
a professor in the late 70s. And then when I
came here in 79, I think I met him again
(04:30):
either in 79 or 80 when he was making the
rounds with Hill staffers. And we've been friends since the
early 1980s.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
By the way, for what it's worth, I'm urging the
White House to award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
I hope they do so. I've publicly called for that.
I'm trying to make that happen because I think that
would be very appropriate.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Well, I think it would be deserved. He is a great,
great man and one of the great thinkers.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I've never met him, but I've admired him. He's brilliant
and courageous.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Well, he's courageous. He and I met him. I met
Walter Williams back then when I got here.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I met Walter Williams when I was in high school.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Is that right?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Yeah, he was inspiring even when I was a kid.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Brash, but he's... And there was another gentleman that you
don't know that's also passed away, like Walter, who's on...
Dunn was also very quiet, but a libertarian and was very,
very helpful. But anyway, the whole point is that in
(05:43):
Jefferson City, again, I go back to what I said
at the very beginning, that things that initially seem like
a negative, you know, you can't get a job, so
you wind up in Jefferson City, turn out to be
a blessing. And what I say in retrospect is that
God closed all the doors that I should not have
(06:04):
gone through and left one door open, my Hobson's choice,
and turned out to be the best job I've ever had.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
All right, let me take a quick second. I want
to talk to you about how you can get involved
right now to help the people in Israel and the
rising anti-Semitism that's happening not only in the U.S., but
around the world every day. And the Jewish people continue
to pay the price from growing threats against Jewish communities,
attacks of violence, harassment and intimidation. Many Jewish families are
(06:32):
living with fear simply because they are Jewish. Synagogues, schools,
and community centers continue strengthening security as hatred spreads far
beyond the headlines. And that's why the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews is working every day in Israel and
around the world, providing security, emergency assistance, food, and critical
care for vulnerable Jewish communities. For more than 40 years,
(06:54):
the fellowship has stood alongside the Jewish people, delivering practical
support when it is needed the most. Hatred, it continues
to spread, but compassion and action can make a world
of difference. So I want you to join us. The
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and me in doing
one simple thing, praying for the safety of the Jewish people,
(07:16):
for peace in Israel, and for an end to anti-Semitism. Together,
we can remind God's people that they are not alone.
If you want to know what to pray for, you
can stand with Israel in prayer today by visiting PrayIFCJ.org.
That is PrayIFCJ.org.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Ultimately, you're in the AG's office. You go get a
job in corporate America at Monsanto, which paid you a
good chunk of money but was not rewarding and you
were not happy with corporate America. And then Jack Danforth
has gone to the Senate and you go work for
him in the Senate. And you're Capitol Hill staffer and
(07:58):
you go to a conference with Thomas Sowell.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah, he invited me personally to that in San Francisco.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
And at the time, you're a Republican staffer, but you're
on the journey. One of the things I try to
do in the book is chronicle the intellectual journey and
awakening from an angry left-wing radical to a principled conservative.
That's a pretty big shift. And reading was an important
(08:28):
part of it. Questioning was an important part of it.
But you've described how you're sitting at, at a lunch
table with, with Juan Williams, the reporter, having what you
thought was a conversation. And, and, uh, it was one
of your first interactions with, with the press and, and
it ended up having a big feature article in the
(08:50):
Washington Post describing you as the black conservative, which, which
was a pretty startling thing for you.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, I'd never called myself conservative. I, I've, you know, the, um,
That was a way of character. They called us black
conservatives in order to dispose of us. They called Tom
Sowell that, Walter Williams, Jay Parker, who was another dear friend,
has passed away. But I was shocked. Remember now, I'm
(09:22):
32 years old. I'm a Hill staffer. I've never been
in the press. I had just made my first trip
to California.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
You got the inkling that there was going to be
something on you when they sent a photographer to take
a picture.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
I was sharing an office with three other staffers, and
this photographer shows up from the post. And December 16, 1980,
there's my smiling face on the op-ed page. And then
my whole life changed. And the attacks, the negativity.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
And there is a nastiness.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Ostracism.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
As a black conservative that I don't think anyone else
experiences you get some of it as an Hispanic who's
a conservative because I'm not supposed to be a conservative
but you're really not supposed to be a conservative and
there's part of the reason I wanted to write the
book is the vitriol that has been directed at you
is different look Justice Scalia you knew him extremely well
(10:19):
he was a brilliant, extraordinarily principled. He never had the
kind of hate directed to him that you did. And
the left, they view you, a black man is not
allowed to think that way. You're a traitor. And there's
an ugliness to that.
Speaker 2 (10:38):
Yeah, well, I mean, that's, you know, I grew up, again,
I've been fortunate to have had misfortunes. And one of
the things you learned during segregation is there was this
idea that, boy, don't you know your place. And that's
the same thing. I mean, these are the same, some
of the worst people that you would meet, like the progressives.
(11:00):
That's why I mentioned people like Woodrow Wilson, one of
the early progressives.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Who was a vicious racist.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yeah, but see, underneath that, and Paul Johnson makes the
point that you scratch the surface of things like the
Marxists and the socialists. That's what you find because they
have to categorize people. So I understand that. But I
crossed that bridge in my early 30s that I accepted
(11:30):
that this is the way they were going to treat me.
This is what was going to happen. This is what
would happen, and who knew where it would leave, but
God would take care of that part. But the fact
that they have all this vitriol, to me, is a
white flag that they have no argument. When you start calling..
Speaker 1 (11:53):
If they think you're wrong, persuade you.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Look, I'm open to reason, but I will not be
told what to do. No one cajoles me, no one
makes me do anything. Slavery is over. But there's this
sense that don't you know what you're supposed to think?
And that is with me, that is the wrong argument.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Well, and related to that, one of the things that
you have really powerfully written and spoken about is with
affirmative action and racial quotas, it brings with it a stigma.
You rather famously put a sticker of 15 cents on
your Yale law degree from a cigar box because, and
(12:41):
you talked about coming out of Yale, but not being
able to get a job. And look, I went to
school at a different time than you did, but I'll
tell you, as an Hispanic, I still remember this one
supercilious liberal in law school explaining that everyone who wasn't
a white man, was on the law review because of
(13:01):
affirmative action. That was the only reason anyone could possibly
do well is because they were giving us this gift.
And it was infuriating.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
You know, I've heard, I've been, there are many, many
slights along the way. But it doesn't make you wrong.
These are little bumps in the road. And what I
compare it to, again, I compare it to what My
grandparents went through. Like, just take my grandfather. Yeah. If
(13:34):
I'm going to complain, right, I have to look at him,
at a man who didn't complain. He never knew his father.
His mother dies when he's six or seven, maybe eight.
And then he goes to live with his grandmother, who's
a freed slave who lives on a part of the
(13:56):
plantation that they're from.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Just pause for a second and think about the marvel
of America, that your grandfather who raised you was raised
by his grandmother who was a freed slave. And now
you are the second longest serving Supreme Court justice in
American history and in a couple of years will be
(14:21):
the longest serving. That is– it's one of the things– Look,
those who point to the flaws in our nation's history,
they're not wrong. Our racial history in particular has been
a history of injustice, and slavery was grotesque. But I
agree with Dr. King that the arc of history is long,
(14:43):
and it bends towards justice. And that journey was possible
because of the principles America was built on, even if
it took us decades and even centuries to begin living
up to it.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Well, you know, he always, my grandfather would talk about
don't throw out the Ten Commandments because people don't obey them.
There's nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments. It's just we
have weaknesses or for whatever reasons we don't comply. And
I think sometimes when you're angry and you see suffering
(15:19):
and difficulties, you are willing to throw everything out, the
baby with the bathwater. And as you get older, you
can be more discerning. And one of the things I
think that's unfortunate is that the people who should know
better haven't stood up and defended those principles and asserted
(15:41):
them and then tried to live up to them and
not be hypocritical and not to sacrifice the principles for
a share of the power, for a share of the
loot that they're getting from the country or whatever. And
so one of the things that I tried to do
when I was teasing out the speech at the University
of Texas is to make this point. Two things that
(16:04):
I wanted to talk about was the fact that here
you had uneducated people who believed that God made them equal.
And you had Irish nuns, immigrants, that believed strongly that
in God's eyes, we're all equal. And this was not
(16:27):
to be debated. No matter what the laws around us said,
this was not debatable. So now that means if there
are Irish immigrants and uneducated people who have no formal
education believe this, my point was simply that it must
(16:47):
be self-evident. Otherwise, how else would they know? The other
part of it that I was interested in is there
are a lot of nice words in the Declaration, for example.
But what do they pledge? Their lives, their fortune, and
their sacred honor. And this is after what the king says,
(17:11):
I'm going to hang all of you.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
And that was not theoretical.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
No, no, I know it. He was not happy. But
at any rate, my point is if you end it
by saying, I'm willing to die for this. Now, that
gives value to what you just said. In your wedding vows,
you say, I do, and you mean it. You said
you've been married, what, 29 years?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
25.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
25 years. So that gives content to your wedding vows. Yeah.
When I said, I do, to my wife, that gives content. Otherwise,
it's just nice words. And I think one of the things,
and this goes back to my point about leaving the seminary,
Do you really mean it? Do you really believe as
(17:54):
a church what you said you believe? And it was
the gap between that, what you said, the church said,
and what the leadership seemed to a 19-year-old to believe.
And I think in this country now, think about it.
When last have you had a leader that said something
(18:15):
that is the equivalent I pledge my life, my property,
my fortune, and my sacred honor.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
So you referenced the speech you gave at University of Texas.
I want to commend all the listeners here. Go and
listen to that speech. It really was an extraordinary speech.
I'm proud of UT. I spent a couple of years
on the faculty as an adjunct law professor there. And look,
most law schools are so left-wing. I'm proud of UT
for inviting you there. The president, Jim Davis, is a
(18:46):
good friend.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Had you there, but it really is an important speech
and conversation, and if folks haven't listened to it, they should.
What I want to do in the interest of time,
there are additional chapters in your life from being a
Hill staffer to an assistant secretary of the Department of
Education to the chairman of the EOC and the Reagan
administration to a court of appeals judge on the D.C.
(19:12):
Circuit to going through one.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Of..
Speaker 1 (19:17):
If not the most brutal confirmation hearing of any justice.
You and Brett Kavanaugh can arm wrestle for who had
the rougher time, but in many ways, and I talk
about this in the book, how what Justice Kavanaugh went
through was a replay of the playbook that you were
subjected to. I want to skip over all of those periods,
(19:37):
although I recount them in detail in the book. And
I want to go to after you are confirmed. and
you're sworn in and you're in your early 40s and
suddenly you're a Supreme Court justice and your autobiography ends
with your being a justice so it tells your life
(20:00):
story but then does not cover your jurisprudence I want
to start with just a human thing what's it like
the first day you're a justice. You walk in, like
just what's day one of being a Supreme Court justice?
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Well, you feel a little small. And like, what the
heck am I doing here? Which is still a question.
But this is, you know, the, as I said, just
Lord grant me the wisdom to know what's right and
(20:35):
the courage to do it. That has been a constant
plea of mine. And it is what brought me back
to the church, stopping at first St. Nicholas, then sometimes St. Mary's,
and sometimes St. Joe, to just ask for the wisdom
(20:56):
and to know what is right and the courage to
do it. But you know, it is just the, you
pledge to I gave President Bush my promise. I took
an oath. He said, can you call him as you
(21:16):
see him? He asked me that in Kennebunkport, July 1, 1991.
I said, I can. And that's what I've lived up to.
My grandfather, when I asked him when I was being
attacked in the early 80s, 1982, I said, what should
I do? He said, boy, you got to stand up
for what you believe in. It's pretty simple. And I
(21:39):
must say, I'm on the other side of that spectrum now,
but I was treated royally, fabulously, by my new colleagues.
Your old boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, Stevens, O'Connor,
a great woman who doesn't get the credit she deserves,
Justice Kennedy. And now I'm on the other side of
(22:02):
it where I have newer colleagues, wonderful teachers, And brilliant
young people like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, you mentioned. We
have Amy Barrett. And then Sam Alito and I were
at Yale together. Just a wonderful, wonderful group.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
You were classmates at Yale.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
He was a year behind.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
He was a year behind you, but you didn't know
each other.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
He's a funny guy. He's brilliant. He was always nerdy.
Princeton guy like you, right? Yeah. And so... I said, Sam,
how come we were there two years together? Why weren't
we friends? Clarence, you were scary. I'm so glad they
didn't have these phones where you could take a lot
(22:46):
of pictures. I wore bib overalls throughout law school and
combat boots. It was awful. But, you know, you have
just the chief has been a good friend. But my
point is simply this, that, you know, I was embraced there.
It was a different generation. It's the World War II,
(23:09):
Byron White. They were just wonderful people. They were very
kind to me. You know, the courts changed a bit
now since the Dobbs League. Back then there was a trust. Yes.
There was an honor. Even as you disagreed, there were
(23:30):
lines you did not cross, and I like that. These
people were the age of my mother and older. And
so it was a different era. And now it's a
different generation now. But the point is that you have
(23:53):
equally good people who are there. I mean, I loved,
I knew some of them as law clerks. They've become
very dear friends. And I hope to be a model
to them as the older members of the court who
were there when I arrived were to me.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
So of all the justices who have served on the court,
I think you are the most willing to reconsider precedent
and to think of an issue anew, which is in
some ways to think about it as it was, in fact,
in many ways to think of it as it was
originally understood. Mm-hmm. and that, you know, your opinion writing is,
(24:38):
you write straightforward opinions in ordinary English. You don't tend
to use fancy highfalutin words, but your opinions are written
so that the regular person can read them and understand
what you're saying, and I think there's a workmanship quality
to your opinions. I analogize it to a farmer or
(25:02):
someone building a home. And you draw that same analogy.
Why do you think it is that you are the
most willing to reconsider precedent?
Speaker 2 (25:12):
You know, I start with something you and I, I think,
have talked about over the years, and that is that
I start with something that has to make sense.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
The quote from your grandfather, if it don't make no
damn sense, it don't make no damn sense.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
And I keep that in my office because the– you can–
he would call some of these professors fast talking. Yeah.
And you think about it. We have had throughout history
court intellectuals who can make all sorts of justifications for
(25:49):
things and theories and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And I've been blessed because I can sort through the
theories and I read lots and lots and lots of books.
And I've been at it a long time. And I
have young people who have that energy and they say,
we're going to go find the answer. Now, it may
not be what we want, but we're going to go
(26:10):
look for it. And what we find in many instances
is it's been a theory. So you can have, you know,
you can, deductive reasoning. You have a theory and you
work down. Or you can have inductive, which any rancher
or farmer uses, which is you do something and it's
experience and you keep generalizing up to something more general.
(26:34):
And that's the world I grew up. The latter is
the world I grew up in. I cannot explain it
to that guy on the ranch. Yep. And if he says, boy,
that don't make no sense. You know, he should be a,
he or When I go out to ordinary people, they
should be able to understand their Constitution.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
And by the way, ordinary people, one thing people may
not know, you do that a lot. You and Jenny
go out in your RV, like in the summertime, you
head across the country and are in Walmart parking lots
just hanging out with regular people.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Well, I'm Bucky's now. All right, now as a Texan.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
That makes me happy. Bucky's is a destination.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
But, you know, I love, I grew up with... as
my granddad said, PO folks. And that's the world I like.
I like people who work with their hands. I like
people who are regular people. That's my preferred world. And,
(27:34):
you know, I was, my wife laughs at me because
I was, my, our motor home is, motor coach is
35 years old. So I like the old buses. And
so you hang out with the guys who do work
on old buses. And, I got to spend time with
one of them this in the December and we're like,
(27:54):
we take all the wheels off and you're up. So
I said, that was happy as I could be because
you're under the air. You got all the shocks, all
the airbags, you know, the lines he's, he's showing you
all these things, the valves. And it was just, I
could not, I wish I could spend two weeks there
instead of two days. But, The point is, it's their constitution.
(28:15):
It's that truck driver's constitution. It's that school teacher's constitution.
It's not the preserve of court intellectuals and law professors.
And we've turned it into that. We've over-intellectualized it. This
is a point that Murray Rothbard makes in his book,
Conceived in Liberty. We've taken something that was passionately achieved
(28:37):
and that was believed in passionately, and we turned it
into this thing that you need an oracle. to explain.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
The Federalist Papers were newspaper editorials.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
And they were only in New York, by the way.
Those were basically Hamilton and those guys. There's a big
difference between Hamilton and some of the more radical guys,
like a Sam Adams, which is more than a beer,
by the way.
Speaker 1 (29:05):
I will admit there was an amusing exchange of one
commentator on the left who was on TV saying, James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson, can you imagine those people overthrowing the government?
And I couldn't help but respond, yes, yes, I can.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
It kind of happened. One of the things you have
been really eloquent on, and I think profoundly influential on
is the– look, the Constitution is the foundational document that
created our government. But you have focused a great deal
(29:51):
on the Declaration of Independence and– Why is the Declaration
so important and what is the relevance that people should
know about it?
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Well, the Constitution sets up the government, the form of
the government. But what precedes that? What does it mean?
What defines you, your rights? How do they view your rights?
Where do they come from? And where does the government
come from? And it sets the order right. Just take
(30:24):
it simple. It says your rights come from God, basically,
from nature's God. And then from that, you give up
some of those God-given natural rights in order to be governed.
And what does that lead to? That leads to the Constitution.
(30:47):
I was pointing out to my clerks the other day,
because you get these Second Amendment cases. And I said,
you know, why do we keep saying there's a Second
Amendment right? The Second Amendment says the right to bear
arms shall not be infringed. It assumes a right. It
(31:08):
doesn't grant a right. And so you can go First Amendment,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Where does that come from?
And that's what I was interested in, that what establishes
this whole notion of liberty. What establishes this order of rights?
And so it matters if you think the government is
(31:31):
the primary giver of, grantor of rights, and you receive
rights and benefits from the government versus you have the
rights and the government receives its authority from you. And
I think that that order... being able to establish that
(31:52):
in each case is important. And if you go back,
and that explains Justice Scalia's writings on the structure of
the Constitution being the safeguard of these rights that you
have that are antecedent and that are transcended. So I
focus on that to always get the order right. When
(32:15):
you farm, every farmer knows, like when you plant, or
when you plow, I don't know if you've ever plowed.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
I'm a city boy, so I've watched it on TV.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
So my granddaddy said, boy, he would always say, and
he put a little cuss word in there from time
to time, he said, and those rows better be straight.
So you have to take your first row, and it
has to be absolutely straight. Then you put your tire
in a groove where the plows, especially if you're using
a dish plow, and they go different ways. You go
(32:48):
and you follow that. So now every subsequent row is straight. Well,
going back to your point about precedent, what if that
first row is crooked? Will you keep going, pretending that
it's straight, or do you go back and make it straight?
That's why you say, well, I'm not accepting precedent. If
(33:09):
something doesn't make any sense, what am I going to do?
Am I a fool for following that or not questioning it?
I taught a course on stare decisis just for this point.
It makes sense when you have this unwritten laws and
when you have traditions and when barons are ruling on
cases in these rural areas in England. But when you
(33:31):
have positive law, when it's written down and you can
see the deviation, who's the fool? You follow something that's absurd.
Why would you follow something that's absurd?
Speaker 1 (33:42):
Well, look, a great example of that, in a case
I talk about quite a bit in the book, is
the Kelo case, where Kelo involved a city that was
condemning a woman's home.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
That they had for 100 years. Yes. This tiny house,
regular person's house, not a mansion, and for a public purpose,
not a public use. And that started in southwest D.C.,
by the way, the precedent for that. And the court
was willing to say that the public purpose was the
(34:18):
equivalent of public use. Well, a public purpose could be
to increase your tax base.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
Well, and actually, as I was driving over here to
do this, I wanted to look. I pulled up the
language of the Fifth Amendment. And the relevant prohibition at
the end of it is, nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation. So that's the
(34:44):
actual language. And Kelo, unfortunately, it was 5-4, the majority
said that the city of New London, Connecticut could take
her home. not for a highway or a road or
a city building, but for a parking lot for a
planned Pfizer building. And you dissented, you dissented, and it
(35:09):
focused on the words public use versus purpose. And explain
that distinction to us.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
Well, purpose is a very broad term.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
And the court and its precedent had basically turned use
into purpose.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
But there's another thing. principle or that we have followed
for years, which is you don't take, the government doesn't
take property, private property from person A and give it
to private person B. That's not a public use. So,
but going back to your point that a public use
(35:44):
would be a park, it'd be a hospital, it'd be
a highway, et cetera. Something that the public uses. A
public purpose doesn't necessarily, is much, much broader. So just
imagine you have a somewhat blighted area. But suddenly it's
attractive to people with lots of money. And a city decides, well,
(36:10):
we'd like to increase our tax base. Well, there are
all these young people with lots of money who want
to build these McMansions or these high-end $ 2 or $ 3
million structures. Well, the public purpose would be to increase
that tax base, but that's not a public use. And
now you've given people who have authority to take your
(36:34):
property a much broader way and much more power to
take an individual's property. Now, why is the issue? I
took quite a bit of property at Yale for this reason.
If you go back to Georgia, if you go back
to the South, you go to places like South Carolina,
There was all this land that blacks owned in the
(36:56):
way that my family received land over the years. It
was called heirs' property. Everybody owns it. Nobody's really in charge. Well,
a lot of that land, there were aggressive efforts to
use that land for developments. It could be for resorts
(37:19):
in Hilton Head. It could be for strategic purposes in
Harris Neck, Georgia. It could be for conservation in places
where blacks were subsistence farmers, like in McIntosh, Georgia. So
my only point is simply this, that the word, if
(37:39):
you want to protect the property, you have to stick
to the words in the Constitution, or it sort of
spreads out. to broader powers that were not intended and
public purpose allows it. Plus that word appears no place
in the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
Well, I will say, even though you were in dissent,
you did not command the majority in the court. I
think over time, the view you articulated has prevailed and
it's persuaded Texas and many other states have enacted laws
to prevent the taking of public property for public purposes.
And it was inspired, uh, inspired by your very, you know,
(38:19):
Justice O'Connor used an effective analogy in dissent in that
case where she said under this reasoning, the government could
condemn every Motel 6 and to build a Ritz-Carlton.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah. And she's right. And she and I, and remember
she comes from a rancher.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
I think the, just think about it, hand in hand
with liberty. Uh, you had, they, they were traveling companion,
liberty and property.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
Wherever you see it, if you look at the due
process clause, what does it protect?
Speaker 1 (38:57):
Life, liberty, and property.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Okay. Wherever you see it. And that was my grandfather.
What did he say? These were PO. He said a
little bit of land, you get to raise crops, you
get to build a little place to live. Uh, you
get to raise some animals. Okay. The property was a
part of your way to take care of yourself. So
(39:21):
liberty and property, it was the fruit of your labor.
So you worked in the cornfield, you planted it, you
took care of it, you harvested it. It's yours. And
the land is yours. You earned it. And I think
you see throughout the founding all those things that those
(39:41):
were always paired, liberty and property. And we treat it
as though it's a benefit from the government. Yep. rather
than a right that transcends the government and is to
be protected from the government.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
One thing you did there just a minute ago that
is really powerful and that is a consistent theme of
your jurisprudence is you understand the rights protected in the
Constitution with an understanding of the context of history. So
when you're talking about condemning land or property for public
(40:18):
purpose rather than use, you quickly brought it to when
government power is used, historically it has been used over
and over by the rich and powerful against the more
vulnerable in society, often against African Americans or Hispanics or
people who don't necessarily have the ability to defend themselves
(40:40):
against government power. That's something also that you've powerfully done
in the Second Amendment context. And one of the things
that you've said, you and I, when we were sitting
down doing interviews, you talked about the importance of Reconstruction,
that if you're going to understand American history and the Constitution,
(41:01):
you've got to understand Reconstruction. Tell us about that.
Speaker 2 (41:03):
Well, it's everything. I mean, it's, you know, I think Reconstruction,
why did you have Reconstruction? I mean, because you had
the Civil War. You had slaves that were freed. You
had the South that was not going to do what
it should do. And so you basically had the military
in the South. And after Reconstruction, of course, you got
(41:27):
the Redeemers. You got the Redeemers. You have the former
Confederates who've been disempowered, disenfranchised, and they start forming these
vigilante groups. And who are they going after? Are they
going after the Republicans in the South, they're going after
particularly the freedmen. And what's the argument? If you just
(41:50):
take a look at it, you'd see they would maraud.
They would intimidate. They would lynch. And there was a
big difference. But the 14th Amendment is passed. And the
whole point is to now make these slave citizens. But
there's something further going on. If you look at the
(42:11):
debates in the 14th Amendment, the argument is these people
have a right to defend themselves. Now, the radical Republicans
felt that with these rights, privileges or immunities, also brings
the right to bear arms. They have a right to
(42:33):
defend themselves from these marauders. And anyone who lives in
a rural area, who lives in the South, You could
be in Texas, in rural Texas. Everybody is armed for
a variety of reasons. To defend themselves, to hunt, etc.
And if you live in rural Georgia, I didn't know
anybody who didn't have at least one weapon. And you
(42:57):
could have a mad dog. You could have a six-foot rattlesnake.
You could have a moccasin. You could have all sorts
of things. And you could have an opportunity to kill
an animal for food. But my point is that the
radical Republicans understood that without that right to defend themselves..
Speaker 1 (43:19):
And fundamentally, it's a right to life, a right to
protect your life, your kids' life, your family.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
Well, that was the point. That was the Freedmen Bureau.
If you look at the reports, they're getting killed down
here with the Knights of Camellia, the Ku Klux Klan, etc.,
And so you get the 14th Amendment. Right. And defining them,
of course, answering Taney and responding to his notion that
(43:47):
blacks cannot be citizens. But this also brings in the
privileges or immunities clause.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
And Taney was the author of Dred Scott, which if
there's a decision that is more disgraceful than Plessy versus Ferguson,
it was Dred Scott.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
Well, it is... For a lot of different reasons. I've
spent a lot of time on Dred Scott and the
history around Dred Scott. But the whole point is that
here's a man who's trying to figure out a way
to say that no way blacks could ever be citizens
(44:22):
of this country, just by their very nature. And, of course,
we revisit that old notion in the birthright case last term. Yep.
in a different way and for different reasons. But the
14th Amendment in this country is critical because it's basically
the second founding. And so you have to understand that.
(44:43):
So what I think I owe my fellow citizens is
not just to read the words of the Constitution, but
to try to understand not just the 14th Amendment, but
the revolution, leading up to the revolution, the history of England,
the things that influence it. The Civil War, the post-Civil War,
(45:03):
the Reconstruction era, and you may have to read people
you don't necessarily agree with.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
Sure.
Speaker 2 (45:08):
For example, I read and reread Eric Foner on Reconstruction. Now,
he's a revisionist historian, but he's fine. He does a
great job of explaining Reconstruction and a lot of these problems,
and I admire the work that he's done. At the
same time, you may not agree. with the revolutionary period
(45:28):
with Murray Rothbard because he's a libertarian. But he's written
a couple of thousand pages on this and conceived in liberty.
And it's worth reading because it gives you that sort
of granular understanding of the revolutionary period.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
But you told me a story about Justice Breyer when
he was robbed. And if you just share that story.
Speaker 2 (45:58):
Poor Steve Breyer. He's such a good man. So, Steve,
this is a joke, and I hope I don't offend Steve.
He's a very decent man. We spent a lot of
years sitting next to each other. What a fun time.
But at any rate, so Steve Breyer, he'd been robbed,
and he didn't want it to be public. He didn't
(46:20):
want the attention. And Nevis, where they have little property there.
And he said, so he's telling the story to a
number of us, a number of others as I walk
in the room, that he turns to me because I
wasn't there at the beginning. He said, Clarence, I had
a question for you. You're on your porch. You're playing
(46:43):
bridge with another couple, you and your wife, and a
guy walks up with a machete. What would you do?
And I said, I don't play bridge. He said, okay, okay,
you're playing poker. And the guy walks over to the machete,
and he says, he demands money. What would you do?
(47:06):
He said, I don't play poker. I don't play cards, Steve.
He said, what would you be doing on your porch?
I said, cleaning my guns. And I said, do you
want some ketchup with that? But at any rate, he
is such, I hope that doesn't offend him, he is
the nicest man. You know, I... And that goes back.
(47:26):
I just, let me just say a word. You ask about,
you know, the, the court and the work, et cetera.
It's a human institution. And I've been blessed because I
get along with the members of the court. Uh, we
have a different set of colleagues now, uh, but they're wonderful.
You've got, uh, Neil and Louise Gorsuch, the delightful, just
(47:49):
wonderful couple. Um, And, you know, it takes a few
years to get your legs, and he's done that. Brett
Kavanaugh was just the nicest person. He and his wife, Ashley,
she's a Texan. You've got the Alitos, Martha Ann and Sam. Again,
and the Chief and Jane. I mean, it's a wonderful
(48:13):
group of people. And it was when I came on
the court. It's different now because I'm the oldest member
as opposed to They're the youngest. As the New York
Times said, the youngest and the cruelest. But, you know,
it's just, I've just changed perspective. But still, it's a
human institution with decent people on board.
Speaker 1 (48:32):
So I saw Brett and Ashley at Lindsey Graham's funeral.
And they've been friends. I've known them for 30 years.
Ashley was on the. 2000 George W. Bush campaign with
Heidi and me. So we were all young staffers on
that campaign. So I saw the two of them at
Lindsey's funeral. I actually told Brett at the funeral a
story during his confirmation hearing when Lindsey Graham went off.
(48:58):
And I think it's his– Lindsey was a dear friend
of mine and it was his finest moment I believe
as a senator where he unloaded on the unfairness of
what was happening and My mother had not previously been
a fan of Lindsey Graham's. And in the hearing, she
texts me and she says, okay, I now love Lindsey Graham.
(49:24):
And she goes online and gives him 40 bucks. And
so I walk over to Lindsey, I pull out my
phone and I show him the text from my mom.
And Lindsey is cracking up laughing.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
Well, you know, it is really interesting. And that goes
to our country. People like people who stand up for
what's right.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
Amen.
Speaker 2 (49:43):
And as I said to you from the beginning, I
do not understand a lot about this town. I don't
know who has the time for all this animus toward
other people. I don't spend any of my day on
that sort of thing. But the lying that takes place,
the attacks on financial disclosure, it was laughable in one way,
(50:04):
but just painful to just the lies.
Speaker 1 (50:08):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (50:09):
But you and Mike Lee and the others who stood
up are dearly appreciated because we could not believe the
inundation of just misstatements and falsehoods. And we don't have
the capacity at the court to defend ourselves. We don't
(50:29):
have a bully pulpit or anything like that. Most of
us just simply are doing our jobs. And we can disagree.
In the old days, I first became aware of the
court when they're riding along US 17 between Savannah and
(50:51):
the farm. There were these impeach Earl Warren signs after
Brown v. Board of Education. And so I understand that
people have different ways of reacting. to the work that
we do, but this current environment that we're in is quite,
(51:12):
excuse me, quite different from signs saying impeach Earl Warren.
Speaker 1 (51:16):
Well, Justice, let me say thank you. Thank you for,
you've been incredibly generous with your time. Thank you for
joining us on this podcast. Thank you for spending the
time in the interviews to write this book. And look,
I've said this before, but you are a true American hero.
And I want to say to the folks listening, you're
a young person, there are a lot of young people
(51:37):
that listen to this podcast. If you are a young
person and you're looking for someone to admire, someone to emulate,
someone to walk along a path and be inspired by,
you would be very hard pressed to find a better
role model than Clarence Thomas. And that's why I wrote
(51:57):
this book, because I think you are an incredibly historic
significant human being and leader with courage and principle, and
I am grateful. You can order the book, goingfurther.com, pre-order
the book, buy it for your family. I think you'll
like it. I think you'll learn. I hope in this
(52:21):
podcast you've seen why I admire Justice Thomas so much
and why I think you should as well. And thank
you very much, and we'll see you on the next podcast.
Thank you, Justice.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
Thank you.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.