squashed replied to your post: Personal Notes: On Reading Cases
And when it’s a Thomas opinion, I close the book. Because Thomas’s opinions are written terribly. Scalia was at least witty.
Thomas is horrible 99% of the time. But he is actually fairly lucid when he’s writing…

I’m not going to address Affirmative Action on the whole as theory or practice but I am sympathetic to your unease in finding yourself nodding along to Justice Thomas. I had the similar and unfortunate experience last week while reviewing my Con Law readings. His Grutter dissent is actually a stirring revival of the important and beautiful colorblind interpretation the Equal Protection Clause as well as a reality check on how lax the Court can be with the second prong of the Strict Scrutiny inquiry. I admit, I felt fairly strange telling a friend after class that I was both the President of my law school’s ACLU and (temporarily) in agreeance with Justice Thomas.


Thankfully this sympathy for the (originalist) devil(s) didn’t last too long. This morning I draw caricatures of Scalia sobbing like a baby in the margins of his particularly histrionic United States v. Virginia (1996) dissent.       D:    < Scalia

Anywho, relevant news is relevant: New York Times - Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Affirmative Action Case

“It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income,”

House Rep. Louise Slaughter, discussing Clarence Thomas’s failure to report $700,000 worth of income in disclosures required under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.  Slaughter has been joined by a number of house members in calling for investigations into Thomas’s financial activities.

If they do investigate, I hope they call it the “Slaughter Commission.”  Too perfect.

(via letterstomycountry)