The strange company Clarence Thomas keeps

Legal Times’ Tony Mauro wrote an interesting profile this week on Alabama State Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, whose far-right ideology makes him similar to the infamous theocrat Roy Moore. It was Parker’s connection to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, however, that stood out.

To describe Parker as on the fringe of conservative legal thought is to put it mildly. He’s accused the Supreme Court of “tyranny”; he encourages state officials to “actively resist” rulings he disagrees with; he does not feel bound to honor Supreme Court precedent; and he admits that he does not believe the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

And then there’s Justice Parker’s interesting choice of campaign audiences.

During the campaign, as documented by the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center, Parker handed out Confederate flags, made appearances with pro-Confederate groups, and attended a birthday party for the late Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the original Ku Klux Klan.

“These appearances put Tom Parker way outside the mainstream in Alabama,” says the center’s Mark Potok.

Parker shrugs off the criticism and says with a laugh that the controversy over his appearances “helped me reach voters I never could have reached” without the publicity.

Shortly after the controversial appearances, Parker was elected to the state Supreme Court with 56% support. When it came time to take the oath of office, guess who he turned to?

Through mutual friends, Parker asked whether [Justice Clarence] Thomas would give him the oath of office in January 2005. Thomas agreed, and Parker traveled to Washington for the private ceremony. A day later, [Roy] Moore gave him another oath back in Alabama, and Parker said, “I have been doubly blessed to have been sworn into office by two heroes of the judiciary.”

I know Justice Thomas is not for answering questions, but I’d sure love to hear why he agreed to do this.

Why do I have the impression that many conservatives don’t realize that we are no longer governed by the Article of Confederation? Or get over the fact that the Southern states committed treason against the federal government and LOST?

  • I’d sure love to hear why he agreed to do this.

    Maybe he was afraid that if he didn’t, Judge Parker’s supporters would give him a new necktie?

  • Thomas [i]does[/i] understand that the KKK lynches black people, right?

    Right?

  • attended a birthday party for the late Nathan Bedford Forrest, founder of the original Ku Klux Klan

    Forrest was a more complex character than that statement indicates. While he was a founder (and first Grand Wizard) of the KKK, he left the group in 1869 after it turned violent, ordering it to disband. He himself said that he joined the KKK to protest reconstruction, particularly to oppose “carpetbaggers” (!!) and “scalawags”, and that his activities were not directed against blacks. I’m not sure Forrest should be judged any more harshly than other Confederate leaders, such as Lee and Jackson.

  • Re: #11

    Fair enough, and thanks for clearing that up. But is his opposition to the violence, or his foundation of the KKK the reason for his celebration?

  • Sorry Shargash. Regardless of his personal feelings, Forrest has unfortunately become a prominent fixture in Klan iconography. Except for the occasional scholar, almost all of the folks who invoke his name or honor his memory do so because of his connection to the pointy-hooded cretins (or is that Kretins?).

  • What an unholy trio: Parker, Thomas and Moore. Putting “Justice” together with any of them creates a severe oxymoron. The Regal Moron doesn’t understand this, of course. God, I feel for the few sensient, intelligent people in Alabama.

  • Or get over the fact that the Southern states committed treason against the federal government and LOST?

    It took about the first five minutes of my twenty years of living in Alabama to realize the South didn’t lose, it just made a tactical retreat.

    Still, no one has been able to answer the question: Why the hell did we fight a war to keep this state in the union?

  • I know Justice Thomas is not for answering questions, but I’d sure love to hear why he agreed to do this.

    Perhaps because they share the same judicial philosophy? Thomas clearly doesn’t think the bill of rights should restrict state governments. Just look at his musings on the establishment clause. He is as much of a wacko as Moore and Parker.

  • Comments are closed.