The belief that someone would make a better Supreme Court Justice because of his race or gender is seriously flawed. If it were true, adherents of that belief would have to be fans of Clarence Thomas. But they’re not, and they defeat their own argument by failing to credit Thomas with the very qualities they claim to be seeking. Thomas, who grew up dirt poor and black in the segregated South, brings everything to the bench the liberals say they want in the next nominee.
But the whole identity thing breaks down when Thomas fails to decide cases according to liberal dogma. Coming from a disadvantaged background is not really supposed to make you a better judge, just a more liberal one. Thomas disproves the theory.
Rather than admit the theory is flawed, liberals insist instead that Thomas is flawed. In their minds, he must forfeit the attributes of being black and disadvantaged so that they won’t have to admit their theory is wrong.
Today we find a little human interest story that will probably get little attention, because it too suggests that Thomas might not be playing his assigned role. It seems that Thomas is . . . well, empathetic? Impossible.
