“Amul Thapar sets the record straight with this can’t-put-down series of stories that reveal the courage, decency, and humanity of the man behind what many are calling the Thomas Court.”
—Megyn Kelly, journalist
Judge Amul Thapar discusses social rights cases changing our society
US Federal Court Judge Amul Thapar of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit is with us and we’ll be talking about his book, The People’s Justice, Clarence Thomas, and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him.
We’ll see if we can get his opinion, maybe, on this new story as well, where the US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark LGBTQ case.
Where the Court defended the right of a conservative designer to refuse to create websites for gay weddings. The Supreme Court ruled that a conservative web designer is legally entitled to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings.
The court’s liberal justices barely condemned what they saw as an attack on a protected class. I mean, I think that’s fair if there are, you know, if there’s a LGBTQT plus Trans’ web designer who refuses to create a website for conservatives. I think that’s fair. I get it although we get into trouble, when we get into services like, let’s say, website hosting. Or different, boy, is that a can of worms? I’m glad I’m not a judge. So that is why I don’t have any answers there.
Hrvoje Moric: Joining us is Amol Tapara, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit. He grew up in Toledo, Ohio, the son of immigrants from India, a graduate of Boston College, and the University of California at Berkeley Law School. He served as a US attorney and district court judge before his appointment to the appellate court in 2017. He and his wife have three children and live in Kentucky. And his latest book is just out from Regnery Gateway. It’s called The People’s Justice, Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him, you can get it now in physical or digital form.
Welcome to TNT Radio, judge.
US Court of Appeals Judge Amol Tapara: Thank you for having me. It’s a ton of fun to be on with you.
Hrvoje Moric: Yes. And we’re honored to have you. And it just randomly came to be that this week is sort of Supreme Court Week. I recently had a law expert on, Robert De La Jante, who co authored with John Yu, the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court. And so, it’s fun to have you as well.
And I’ve been reading your book today. It’s very accessible, very informative for the average, you know, US citizen. And maybe to start, you know, why did you write the book? Why now, this book on the People’s Justice Clarence Thomas?
Justice Thomas’s Originalism
Judge Amol Tapara: You know, the Justice and I in many ways have similar backgrounds. We are both privileged to be where we’re at. We owe it to the good graces of the American people. And so, when you think about the criticisms, it favors the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the corporations over the consumers, the government over the individual. But the book proves the opposite is true.
And the way it does so is not by telling the reader what to think. But, as you know, from reading some of it, you can tell the stories of the cases of the real people that come in front of the court, and let the reader conclude for themselves.
Does originalism always favor the rich? The corporation? The strong in the government? Or is it much different than the critics say? When you read the actual cases, and learn about the actual people in front of the court, and walk side by side, as they struggle with some of the hardest circumstances imaginable, and bring cases in court.
Hrvoje Moric: And maybe if you want to just, again, educate the audience, this term originalism, for some of us, might not be as familiar. So if you want to just briefly, you know, explain originalism.
Judge Amol Tapara: I’d love to. So, the way I explain it is when I got nominated to the 6th circuit, my neighbor came running down, and he said, I can’t believe it. I just read in the newspaper you’re an originalist. I can’t believe you’re one of those.
And I said, Mike, you’re a businessman. Right? Yes. And when you sign contracts with other people, you put what you agree with in writing. Right?
Yeah. And that’s your meeting of the minds. Correct? And he says, of course, that’s our meeting of the minds. That’s what we agreed to.
And I said, okay. If you have a dispute, should I tell you what’s best for you? Should I just say what’s better now than it was when you signed the contract? Or should I try to figure out what the tool is you meant and hold you to the benefit or the detriment of your bargain? And he said, of course, you should try to figure out what we meant and hold us to the benefit or detriment of our bargain. And I said you too are now an originalist. And, the point being is that when we put things in writing, think about how we interpret words when people talk to us, or it’s written down. We try to figure out what those words mean. That’s all an originalist is doing. They’re not importing their own values.
They’re saying, what did the American people give up in exchange for a limited government? And what did they keep for themselves? And we look at the document to understand that and then apply it to present day cases.
Hrvoje Moric: Would you say that we have and I would totally agree with that, you know, I would then consider myself an originalist. Would you say we’ve strayed far from originalism today? Or is there a danger where we’re trending away from that?
Judge Amol Tapara: I actually think we’re trending towards it. I think there’s more and more originalists on the court. Justice Scalia used to say when he went into the room and said he was an originalist, everyone would run out like he’s a bear. And now I think most people agree that there’s rationalism and there’s its critics. And what justice Scalia used to say to the critics is if you got something else bring it to me and let’s compare the philosophies. But if you go read the literature, which no one should do unless they want to fall asleep, the point being is that it’s originalism and its critics.
And that means no one’s got an alternative other than the judges making things up or engaging in a living, breathing constitution. Well, what does a living, breathing, constitution mean? It’s just as Scalia said, words and documents don’t live and breathe. And, that’s just judges amending the Constitution. Ignoring the words of the constitution, which say only the American people through a proper process can amend the Constitution.
It also means people say, well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You can’t adapt to the times. But the point is we shouldn’t encourage so many lawsuits to quote unquote, retain our rights.
If the constitution doesn’t cover it, people can pass laws locally at the state level or federally by working with their neighbor.
In in other words, we will, by staying out of the dispute, encourage civic engagement. And that’s why originalism is so important. It encourages people to work together to solve the problems of today rather than having judges impose their own values on the American people.
Hrvoje Moric: Alright. Yeah. That was a great sort of clearing up for us.
And so, judge, you immersed yourself in twelve cases featuring opinions by Justice Clarence Thomas. How did you decide on those twelve? What was the process of investigation like attempting to create an accurate portrayal of Justice Thomas.
Judge Amol Tapara: Yeah. I think the best way and maybe a judge understands is best, so I’ll try and explain it in a way that makes sense if we have both when we write a majority opinion. It’s for a collection of judges. So, it may represent our own views. It may also import the views of others to get to consensus, if that makes sense. But, when we write alone, when we are the author of a separate writing, meaning a concurrence or a dissent. A concurrence is joining in the majority.
A dissent is dissenting from the majority. That represents our true views. So, you have to look. If you want to truly get to a judges or justices actual views, you have to look at their separate writings. So, what I did is I scoured the separate writings. And I looked for ones that I thought really reflected what originalism was all about and gave a cross section of the cases, different cases.
I didn’t want to do all about one subject. And so, I looked for a cross section of cases, and then I dove into the stories. And, I think what the book does, it’s so different than anything that’s been written before is it doesn’t just tell you the law. Right?
It walks you through the story as the litigant is living out the case so that it’s actually, you know, engages with the reader and lets the reader feel like they’re in the person’s shoes with the ultimate climax being the case at the Supreme Court where the people can see what the court did. Hopefully, in understandable terms. That’s what I shop for. And then, sometimes I would use Justice Thomas’ own words because in many of the chapters, they were just so powerful that I couldn’t summarize them better than the justice said them. And I’d let the reader do something that the critics never let the reader do. I let them see for themselves why Justice Thomas did what he did and what he actually said.
Hrvoje Moric: Yeah. And I appreciated that approach that you had in my reading. Like I said, for someone like myself, I don’t often read this type of literature. When it comes to legal stuff, back in the day when I was studying, you know, I was studying international law and all that. But again, this is very accessible, and it’s fascinating, especially for US citizens. And one thing, you start the book where you discuss how Justice Clarence Thomas cares about people.
There’s a story where he’s friends with a homeless man, and you know, any further thoughts on, you know, this nature of his?
Clarence Thomas’s character
Judge Amol Tapara: Yeah. Well, I think one thing that’s reflected, and maybe I can tell that story even though it’s in the book. Or I’ll tell a story that’s not in the book just for your listeners.
To give a perspective of who Justice Thomas is, and then, I’ll tie it to the book. So, I was at Yale Law School with the Justice. They were honoring him after 25 years on the bench.
Believe it or not, it was Yale Law School doing it. And when we were done, we went to a reception. And at that reception, there were all the professors who were there. They just wanted 2 minutes of time even though many of them criticized him often. There were the students there.
Who did he spend most of the time with? The support staff. And then when everyone left, we had to escort him to a private dinner. And we were 30 minutes late because he insisted on staying and taking a picture with any support staff member that wanted it. He wanted to personally thank everyone that served that reception.
US Federal Court Judge Amul Thapar of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit is with us and we’ll be talking about his book, The People’s Justice, Clarence Thomas, and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him.
We’ll see if we can get his opinion, maybe, on this new story as well, where the US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark LGBTQ case.
Where the Court defended the right of a conservative designer to refuse to create websites for gay weddings. The Supreme Court ruled that a conservative web designer is legally entitled to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings.
The court’s liberal justices barely condemned what they saw as an attack on a protected class. I mean, I think that’s fair if there are, you know, if there’s a LGBTQT plus Trans’ web designer who refuses to create a website for conservatives. I think that’s fair. I get it although we get into trouble, when we get into services like, let’s say, website hosting. Or different, boy, is that a can of worms? I’m glad I’m not a judge. So that is why I don’t have any answers there.
Hrvoje Moric: Amol Tapara is a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit. He grew up in Toledo, Ohio, the son of immigrants from India, a graduate of Boston College, and the University of California at Berkeley Law School. He served as a US attorney and district court judge before his appointment to the appellate court in 2017. He and his wife have three children and live in Kentucky. And his latest book is just out from Regnery Gateway. It’s called The People’s Justice, Clarence Thomas and the constitutional stories that define him, you can get it now in physical or digital form.
Welcome to TNT Radio, Judge.
US Court of Appeals Judge Amol Tapara: Thank you for having me. It’s a ton of fun to be on with you.
Hrvoje Moric: Yes. And we’re honored to have you. And it just randomly came to be that this week is sort of Supreme Court Week. I recently had a law expert on, Robert De La Jante, who co authored with John Yu, the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court. And so, it’s fun to have you as well.
And I’ve been reading your book today. It’s very accessible, very informative for the average, you know, US citizen. And maybe to start, you know, why did you write the book? Why now, this book on the People’s Justice Clarence Thomas?
Justice Thomas’s Originalism
Judge Amol Tapara: You know, the Justice and I in many ways have similar backgrounds. We are both privileged to be where we’re at. We owe it to the good graces of the American people. And so, when you think about the criticisms, it favors the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, the corporations over the consumers, the government over the individual. But the book proves the opposite is true.
And the way it does so is not by telling the reader what to think. But, as you know, from reading some of it, you can tell the stories of the cases of the real people that come in front of the court, and let the reader conclude for themselves.
Does originalism always favor the rich? The corporation? The strong in the government? Or is it much different than the critics say? When you read the actual cases, and learn about the actual people in front of the court, and walk side by side, as they struggle with some of the hardest circumstances imaginable, and bring cases in court.
Hrvoje Moric: And maybe if you want to just, again, educate the audience, this term originalism, for some of us, might not be as familiar. So, if you want to just briefly, you know, explain originalism.
Judge Amol Tapara: I’d love to. So, the way I explain it is when I got nominated to the 6th circuit, my neighbor came running down, and he said, I can’t believe it. I just read in the newspaper you’re an originalist. I can’t believe you’re one of those.
And I said, Mike, you’re a businessman. Right? Yes. And when you sign contracts with other people, you put what you agree with in writing. Right?
Yeah. And that’s your meeting of the minds. Correct? And he says, of course, that’s our meeting of the minds. That’s what we agreed to.
And I said, okay. If you have a dispute, should I tell you what’s best for you? Should I just say what’s better now than it was when you signed the contract? Or should I try to figure out what the tool is you meant and hold you to the benefit or the detriment of your bargain? And he said, of course, you should try to figure out what we meant and hold us to the benefit or detriment of our bargain.
And I said you too are now an originalist. And, the point being is that when we put things in writing, think about how we interpret words when people talk to us, or it’s written down. We try to figure out what those words mean. That’s all an originalist is doing. They’re not importing their own values.
They’re saying, what did the American people give up in exchange for a limited government? And what did they keep for themselves? And we look at the document to understand that and then apply it to present day cases.
Hrvoje Moric: Would you say that we have and I would totally agree with that, you know, I would then consider myself an originalist. Would you say we’ve strayed far from originalism today? Or is there a danger where we’re trending away from that?
Judge Amol Tapara: I actually think we’re trending towards it. I think there’s more and more originalists on the court. Justice Scalia used to say when he went into the room and said he was an originalist, everyone would run out like he’s a bear. And now I think most people agree that there’s rationalism and there’s its critics. And what justice Scalia used to say to the critics is if you got something else bring it to me and let’s compare the philosophies. But if you go read the literature, which no one should do unless they want to fall asleep, the point being is that it’s originalism and its critics.
And that means no one’s got an alternative other than the judges making things up or engaging in a living, breathing constitution. Well, what does a living, breathing, constitution mean? It’s just as Scalia said, words and documents don’t live and breathe. And, that’s just judges amending the Constitution. Ignoring the words of the constitution, which say only the American people through a proper process can amend the Constitution.
It also means people say, well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. You can’t adapt to the times. But the point is we shouldn’t encourage so many lawsuits to quote unquote, retain our rights.
If the constitution doesn’t cover it, people can pass laws locally at the state level or federally by working with their neighbor.
In in other words, we will, by staying out of the dispute, encourage civic engagement. And that’s why originalism is so important. It encourages people to work together to solve the problems of today rather than having judges impose their own values on the American people.
Hrvoje Moric: Alright. Yeah. That was a great sort of clearing up for us.
And so, judge, you immersed yourself in twelve cases featuring opinions by Justice Clarence Thomas. How did you decide on those twelve? What was the process of investigation like attempting to create an accurate portrayal of Justice Thomas.
Judge Amol Tapara: Yeah. I think the best way and maybe a judge understands is best, so I’ll try and explain it in a way that makes sense if we have both when we write a majority opinion. It’s for a collection of judges. So, it may represent our own views. It may also import the views of others to get to consensus, if that makes sense. But, when we write alone, when we are the author of a separate writing, meaning a concurrence or a dissent. A concurrence is joining in the majority.
A dissent is dissenting from the majority. That represents our true views. So, you have to look. If you want to truly get to a judges or justices actual views, you have to look at their separate writings. So, what I did is I scoured the separate writings. And I looked for ones that I thought really reflected what originalism was all about and gave a cross section of the cases, different cases.
I didn’t want to do all about one subject. And so, I looked for a cross section of cases, and then I dove into the stories. And, I think what the book does, it’s so different than anything that’s been written before is it doesn’t just tell you the law. Right?
It walks you through the story as the litigant is living out the case so that it’s actually, you know, engages with the reader and lets the reader feel like they’re in the person’s shoes with the ultimate climax being the case at the Supreme Court where the people can see what the court did. Hopefully, in understandable terms. That’s what I shop for. And then, sometimes I would use Justice Thomas’ own words because in many of the chapters, they were just so powerful that I couldn’t summarize them better than the justice said them. And I’d let the reader do something that the critics never let the reader do. I let them see for themselves why Justice Thomas did what he did and what he actually said.
Hrvoje Moric: Yeah. And I appreciated that approach that you had in my reading. Like I said, for someone like myself, I don’t often read this type of literature. When it comes to legal stuff, back in the day when I was studying, you know, I was studying international law and all that. But again, this is very accessible, and it’s fascinating, especially for US citizens. And one thing, you start the book where you discuss how Justice Clarence Thomas cares about people.
There’s a story where he’s friends with a homeless man, and you know, any further thoughts on, you know, this nature of his?
Clarence Thomas’s character
Judge Amol Tapara: Yeah. Well, I think one thing that’s reflected, and maybe I can tell that story even though it’s in the book. Or I’ll tell a story that’s not in the book just for your listeners.
To give a perspective of who Justice Thomas is, and then, I’ll tie it to the book. So, I was at Yale Law School with the Justice. They were honoring him after 25 years on the bench.
Believe it or not, it was Yale Law School doing it. And when we were done, we went to a reception. And at that reception, there were all the professors who were there. They just wanted 2 minutes of time even though many of them criticized him often. There were the students there.
Who did he spend most of the time with? The support staff. And then when everyone left, we had to escort him to a private dinner. And we were 30 minutes late because he insisted on staying and taking a picture with any support staff member that wanted it. He wanted to personally thank everyone that served that reception.
Not a single other person did that. Just as Thomas walked around, shook their hands, thanked them for what they were doing, went into the kitchen, and thanked people who were there you know, preparing the food.
And then we went to the dinner. And that’s who justice Thomas is. When he sees and talks to a person, even a critic, that spends 5 minutes with him is amazed at what a wonderful person he is and how much he cares about people. So much so, that Justice Sotomayor said his colleague on the court was someone who thinks very differently than him, but also cares passionately about people. So, it means a lot coming from her. And she said he’s the one Justice in the building that literally knows every employee’s name. He is a man who cares deeply about the Court as an institution about the people who work there, about people.
And so what you see is that personal characteristic translates into his jurisprudence. And I’d be happy if you want to talk about how it does so.
Hrvoje Moric: Sure. Sure.
Justice Thomas and Kathy McKee
Judge Amol Tapara: So, he’s an originalist, first and foremost, and he always lays out the original meaning. But, he then also shows the impact on the people. I’ll pick a case to explain. Kathy McKee is this woman who just in the book traces her rise to stardom. It’s really cool.
But, she alleged that Bill Cosby raped her. And I’m sure your listeners have heard about the Cosby kind of rape allegations against him. Well, when she did so, she felt like Bill Cosby and his lawyers went after her and attacked her character and lied about her. And she wanted to prove in court he was a liar. But, one Supreme Court case stood in her way, and it was the New York Times. All she wanted was a day in court to show she was telling the truth, and he was lying. But what the Supreme Court held in the New York Times, what they did to me. I’m sorry, it created a doctrine that resulted in the fact that if you are a public figure, you can’t sue someone for lying about you unless you can prove they have actual malice.
And as Thomas points out, that’s almost impossible. Now you ask, how is Kathy McKee a public figure? Well, they held that because she accused a powerful man of rape, she became a public figure.
Well, justice Thomas wrote a compelling concur opinion about how the court should revisit this doctrine. And he never forgot about Kathy McKee. Two years after that opinion, he referenced her again and said, by accusing a powerful man of rape, she’d lost her right to prove that she was telling the truth, which would amaze most Americans just as Thomas was pointing this out.
Just this week, in a case called Countermen, he again referenced that opinion in a dissent. So he’s someone that never forgets about the people that appear in front of him. Think about that over 30 years on the court, and he doesn’t forget about the real people in the case.
Hrvoje Moric: I’m curious just to look at the other side. Maybe if you could share a feeling that you have, because you’re giving an example of a justice who cares about people.
And for a brief moment in time, you know, I was in diplomacy and around governments in Geneva and Switzerland, and at the EU, UN and IGOs and stuff like that. And my sort of impression was that by and large, you know, a majority, you know, over 50%. I’m not sure. They’re good people in government.
There’re bad people. But, my impression was that you know, a lot of the people who work in government-politicians, functionaries, apparatchiks, technocrats that I often the ones I came across were narcissistic, opportunistic. And not caring for like, not being serious about caring for the best of the people.
Not taking their office so seriously, you know, in contrast to someone like Justice Thomas. Do you have any off the cuff thoughts on that?
Judge Amol Tapara:nI mean, I think he just proves time and again that he cares passionately about people. I think most of you, most of your listeners, probably don’t know.
When others go away and take a break and Justice Thomas takes a break, he gets in his RV, drives around the country. And when he’s staying in a mobile park or a Walmart parking lot and visiting with people, he doesn’t tell him who he is.
He doesn’t think he’s too big for his britches, he just talks to people in a genuine fashion. And each of these cases in this book, if you read, if your listeners read it, they will see that each case demonstrates not only that the originalism he brings to bear is one that reflects a protection of the American people, and often the little guy. But that He, in each case, reflects a level of caring that very few appreciate other than those who read this book. In fact, I encourage your listeners. And the thing is I’ve included all of my sources in the bibliography. I’ve included endnotes.
You can check everything I did. They’re all in records. Of course, the interviews aren’t there, but you can validate most of them through the records. The one thing I encourage your listeners to do is if they get the book, give it to a friend who’s a critic because they’ve all, or even if they’re a critic, read it with an open mind. But if you give it to a friend who’s a critic, ask them to read it, and then talk to them about it and say, okay.
Is it true what they say about Justice Thomas? because I think they’ll find it’s not.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Don Charles Davis
Hrvoje Moric: And maybe if you look at some of the cases, and again, for me, it was like going back into the classroom. I used to teach history and politics. I mean, I think even your book could be used in the classroom, and it’s very informative. And then, looking at some of the examples you give of the cases and then the comments by Justice Thomas, I often find myself agreeing. Like, yeah, those are logical, you know, dissents or opinions.
And I’m biased. I’m going to pick two of them from Chicago because I’m from Chicago originally. And one of the cases you discuss is an issue on the south side, Cabrini Green. And how we all know about the gang violence, the shootings, and one of the issues was a young kid got shot as a result of a gang situation. And so, the government wanted to issue these dispersal orders where they would have the right to disperse people standing on the corners. And then, you know, I found this really a tough situation because I’m all for freedom and against the unconstitutional restriction of freedoms such as, you know, not having the ability to stand around on the street. But, you know, I was robbed at gunpoint on the north side of Chicago, some 20 years ago, And I understand, you know, the violence.
And so, it’s just Thomas, his dissent, you’re right, was by invalidating Chicago’s ordinance, the court has unnecessarily sentenced law-abiding citizens to lives of terror and misery because apparently that dispersal order had what was working, It was decreasing homicide rates as you’re right by 9%. And so just taking this one case, any thoughts on this?
Judge Amol Tapara: Yeah. So what did Chicago do? Don Charles Davis walks out of his house. Sadly, he gets in the middle of a gang. He’s a seven-year-old kid walking out with his mother.
Just trying to go to school gets caught in the middle of gang crossfire and dies. And that year, I think it was 1992, if I remember correctly, He was the 44th of 52 kids under 14 that were murdered. What was happening was gangs were located on street corners, and they were claiming their turf. And then, any other gang that wanted to move in, they would have to fight and kill each other and get people caught in the crossfire.
Clarence Thomas and Chicago loitering ruling saved lives
In fact, he wasn’t even the first kid at his school caught in the crossfire. There was a nine-year-old. And this is what kids were writing in essays. Air Williams, a six-year-old, penned an essay called trapped in my house, and he wrote the houses in my neighborhood look so pretty, but I don’t see my neighborhood much. I only get to go outside when I get in a car, go to school.
Another thirteen-year-old, Demetrius Jones said, I feel though the world and the people may come to an end. No one seems to care about the children, or the future. Chicagoans had had enough.
And by an overwhelming margin, they passed this. And remember, this ordinance prohibited loitering. And what but it prohibited loitering with gang members. And then it wasn’t a crime just by loitering.
You couldn’t get innocently caught because the police had to order you to disperse. And only if you didn’t follow that order, was it a crime and a misdemeanor? And as you said, the statistics showed when this was enforced, it had success. In fact, it was past 31-11.
And it had so much success that when the courts started striking it down, finding in the Constitution a constitutional right to loiter, the city passed a resolution with a higher vote margin, 25 to 8. So three people that voted against it, didn’t vote this time or voted for it to take it to the Supreme Court. And they ultimately take it to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court in a plurality strikes it down. And another plurality says there’s a constitutional right to loiter. And before I get to Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia, and the chapter traces all the horrors that Chicagoans were facing, and Justice Scalia points out that in our democratic system, we often restrict some liberties for safety.
For example, we put speed limits in place. We have helmet laws. Those are restricting liberty. Your choice to do what you want or to move as you see fit in exchange for safety. And he points out that happens all the time. But what justice Thomas does is he goes through history. And he shows how long loitering ordinances have existed.
And then I think he says this, that is important. He says, gangs fill the daily lives of many of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens with a terror that the court does not give sufficient consideration. Often relegating them to the status quo of prisoners in their own homes. And then he finishes with this, and this is so powerful. Today, the court focus is extensively on the rights of gang members and their companions. It can safely do so.
The people who have to live with the consequences of today’s opinion do not live in our neighborhoods. And then, he, I’m skipping a little, because he talks about what the citizens are going through. And he finishes with these words. He never ever calls a Justice out by name. But here, you could tell this was personal for him growing up poor in the south, by focusing on the imagined rights of the .2%.
The court today has denied our most vulnerable citizens, the very thing that justice Stevens elevates above all else, the freedom of movement, and that is a shame.
Hrvoje Moric: Yeah. And, you know, I think if I had to put my foot down, I would agree, you know, like, someone who is really libertarian-ish, but, at the same time being a Chicagoan, having had a gun, you know, I was the manager of a supermarket, and so these guys came in forced me to open to open, gun in my face.
And threatening to shoot me. And being a father now, and seeing this, that actually working, I would agree, I think, in that situation. And as you said, they give you a warning.
The cops just disperse. And, yeah, I mean, so I would totally agree with that.
And, again, because I’m from Chicago, I’m going to select another one of the cases you looked at, which also dealt with Chicago. I believe Morgan Park and Otis McDonald’s situation. And, it’s interesting I’ve got another personal experience that lines up with his with McDonald’s because his home you know, he saved up money, him and his wife, they had kids. And then, they got their house, and, you know, everything so far is going smoothly. And, his home gets broken into three times. And when I first came to
And then we’ve also had the issue here in Mexico of owning a firearm. You can, but it’s much more difficult. And then, it’s much easier to obtain an illegal firearm here, and that was something also you sort of alluded to in the book. But, you know, I’m licensed in the state of Illinois, but I’ve been away for 15 years. And I always had in my mind that handguns are banned in Chicago. I just learned from your book that I wasn’t aware of that. I think this was in 2014 that changed because of this case. And if you want to tell us more about this case.
Justice Thomas and Otis McDonald
Judge Amol Tapara: Yeah. So, as you’ve highlighted so nicely, Otis McDonald was someone who really relocated to Chicago from Louisiana for a better life. He enlists in the army, comes back as a vet, gets on the GI bill, gets you know. Works during the day, goes to college at night, and gets a better life for his family. But after multiple crimes, three in his house, you know. Three other ones that he suffers. He and the book walk you through it.
You get to walk alongside Otis and see what his life is like. And then what happens is he does multiple things to stop the crime. He first gets bars and puts them in his house, a nice suburb. Now he’s got bars on his house. He gets this because the gangs and drugs are bleeding into his neighborhood.
Then he gets an alarm system. He joins a community group. He becomes the head of the community group working with the police. None of this will protect him from the criminal who’s already in his house.
It is what the final crime is, that is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. They discover someone, a neighbor calls the police luckily, someone hiding under his car in his garage. And thankfully, the police came in time, but oh, this is new.
Next time, it might be too late because by the time you pick up the phone and call the police, if someone’s in your house, it’s too late. And so he wanted a gun.
This vet asked the city of Chicago for a permit. They denied it. He challenged it. And the story walks through the challenge and the drama surrounding the challenge goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
And at the Supreme Court, he ultimately wins his case. The grandson of slaves wins his case to have firearms? Why does it matter that he’s a grandson of slaves? Well, because as Justice Thomas in a separate opinion points out upholding Otis’ gun rights, that after the civil war, the South Passed laws to deny blacks the right to possess a firearm. And people like Frederick Douglas, who Justice Thomas quotes, said the blacks will never have a quality without the right to possess a firearm.
So, Justice Thomas walks through the passing of the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment and talks about how this was understood at the time the 14th Amendment passed to be one of the critical provisions because it protected Black’s right to possess a firearm.
Hrvoje Moric: Yeah. I mean, this was a fantastic outcome. Again, I’m very pleased with that. We’ve got that problem here in Mexico. Hopefully, something happens here in Mexico that goes in the direction that case went in Chicago.
I’m curious. I was listening to some of your recent interviews that you’ve given and in one of the interviews they played, I thought this was interesting.
A clip from Nancy Pelosi, and when Clarence Thomas was brought up, she kind of scoffed. She was questioning his integrity. I questioned Nancy’s integrity myself. But what’s sort of your reaction to Nancy’s reaction to, you know, Clarence Thomas?
Judge Amol Tapara: You know, I don’t want to engage. Politicians have a right to think what they want. What I would ask people like her to do is read the book.
Listen to Justice Briar who thought differently than Clarence Thomas, but said I sat next to the man for 28 years. He’s a man of integrity. I not never heard him say anything or saw him do anything underhanded. Listen to his law clerks. All of whom swear by him.
Did he change it to achieve a different outcome? They can’t point to a single case where Justice Thomas didn’t listen to every member of the court. Sonia Sotomayor, who says he cares deeply about people in the institution. If you’ll notice, you haven’t heard anything from the people who appear in front of the court saying they didn’t get a fair shake from Justice Thomas.
You haven’t heard anything from his fellow justices saying he isn’t fair, or kind or a person of integrity. And the other thing I would point out is the beauty of originalism is you can check his work. Is he being consistent with his priors? Has he changed his jurisprudence in 30 years?
So I mean, I think for his critics, and I lump his critics altogether because I don’t want to engage in debates with politicians or anyone else. I’m going to lump his critics together. And what I would say is, show me.
Show the American people. Where? Where’s the decision where he’s inconsistent with what he’s been saying for 30 years? If he’s not and he’s following the meaning of the words, it’s hard to say he lacks integrity.
Hrvoje Moric: Yeah. And we’re just a little under 4 minutes to midnight, and I thought another important point that I often harp on is courage. You write in the book, courage is something he has practiced his entire life. Finding the right answer, Justice Thomas has observed, is often the least difficult problem. Rather, it’s having the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant whines of protest and criticism that’s often much more difficult.
And I think, the nation, we need more people with this courage to stand you know, on the truth against the crowds and any thought on this? Yeah.
Judge Amol Tapara: I mean, I think it’s important what his grandfather taught him. He taught him two things. You can do anything if you put your mind to it. Don’t whine and complain. Just roll up your sleeves and get to work.
And the second thing he taught him, that goes to this courage is and, I’m going to quote what Justice Thomas says, is he learned to believe in himself and assert my right to think for myself to refuse to have my ideas assigned to me as though I was an intellectual slave, because I am black.
To state that I’m a man, free to think for myself and do as I please and to assert that I am a judge, and I will not be consigned to the unquestioned opinion of others. Think about this man. He’s accused of being a traitor to his race yet, his book proves the opposite is true.
It proves he has a strong black voice. It’s a black voice of nationalism. It’s a black voice of empowerment. It’s a black voice of hope. And he voiced that just this week in his affirmative action concurrence.
So, I think, when you read Justice Thomas, when you read this book, you will see firsthand he has courage. He believes in the power of the American people, and that’s all people to accomplish great things. And he talks about the people accomplishing great things like the NFL running back who’s laid out in this book, and Kathy McKee and others. Some of them happen to be black, but it’s not because they’re black that they’re great.
It’s because they’re Americans who work hard and do the right thing. And Justice Thomas truly believes that all Americans and he highlights all the amazing black Americans. that have accomplished great things and often quotes them in his opinions. So, I challenged the critics to read the book and show me where I’m wrong about that. Use his own words, quote his words when you criticize him
