Justice Thomas has time and again proven himself intellectually and morally unworthy of being a member of the Supreme Court. He should be removed.
37
Justice Thomas’ “Originalism” is a throwback to the “good old days”. As he has said, he is against “high tech lynchings”...but his dissenting. opinion in Flowers (and other death penalty case, most notably Maples) shows his fondness for the old fashioned kind.
15
Constitution’s most basic commands. “Equal justice under law requires a criminal trial free of racial discrimination in the jury selection process,” he wrote. What's so controversial about that?
Of course white racists will object.
7
Funny how so many comments have focused on Clarence Thomas. He didn't write the majority opinion and so his dissent is just that, an opinion. It is, ironically, the conservative white guy that stood against the racism of Mississippi. That the decision that counts. When Thomas was nominated the Congressional Black Caucus voted against him 19 to 1. Of course they had no say but it was symbolic. Republicans called the vote playing the "race card". That is why Clarence Thomas sits on the SC. So that conservatives can claim any attempt at civil rights is just playing the "race card". It explains how a racist black man wound up on the court writing, hopefully, more minority opinions than majority opinions. When it comes to Clarence Thomas, its all about race. Remember, this is America.
4
Is anyone else out there beginning to question Clarence Thomas' sanity?
13
Without the full transcript before us, readers have to trust the justices who did review the entire record. Jury selection is typically an inexact science where lawyers hurriedly trust their gut after looking at tells such as negative body language (folded arms, for example).
It’s bizarre to believe that a person of color wants a murderer set free in their community any more than a white juror does. That perception destroys the jury system as an important institution. Persons should be convicted based on evidence admitted in a court of law, not because of racial animus or perceived favoritism to one’s own race. This decision says that.
6
Excessively aggressive questioning of potential jurors by the enormously powerful prosecutor could be extremely intimidating. The one African-American juror might have felt that he/she would be punished by the prosecutor for refusing to go along with the other jurors.
It appears that media scrutiny did not work to the detriment of the defendant in this case.
3
Why does this entire nation still pretend that Clarence Thomas is qualified to do anything but rip tickets at a movie theater? He’s inept, useless, and has never once written anything that would pass an English Comp and Rhetoric class. I wish I collected paychecks by writing decisions that either said “Yeah!”, or “Why are we going over this case? The legislature should handle it.”
32
I imagine Kavanaugh will be getting a phone call soon from "trump" "reminding" him of why he's there.
13
The injustice that allowed kavanaugh to join the court will be a stain on this court as long as he is there.
A travesty of the the US rule of law and decency.
That all ended ( or started, depending on how you look at it) with mitch mcconnell.
21
Just keep lashing out if it makes you feel better. We want you to be happy.
5
Has Mr. Trump weighed in on this yet? He might tweet his disappointment with Kavanaugh if he is not too distracted by his Middle Eastern problems. We expect a quick overrule of the Supreme Court on this.
4
@Alfred Yul, the supreme court is the final authority. there is no further appeal, nor can anyone overrule them.
5
@mark
Yeah, but the joke is on Trump. Does he understand that he cannot overrule the SCOTUS?
6
I was having a good day 'til I read this.
The last thing I want to think about is Clarence Thomas sitting on the Supreme Court or his dissent in this case.
The last thing I want to think about are the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings - that blight on democracy.
The last thing I want to think about is Joe Biden - currently leading polls for the Democratic nomination. It's largely because of Biden's horrendous decisions as Chair of the Judiciary Committee that Thomas was confirmed to SCOTUS. Biden refused to call 2 witnesses who reportedly were going to support Dr. Hill's allegations against Thomas. Biden refused to call them because he promised a Senate colleague he would ram Clarence Thomas's nomination thru committee quickly. Joe Biden's a man who keeps his promises to Republican Senate buddies.
Joe Biden hasn't apologized to Anita Hill - 28 years later.
Joe Biden hasn't apologized to Corey Booker who 2 days ago dared to question Biden's fond memories of the 'civility' of his discourse with Senate colleagues Herman Talmadge & James Eastland.
See a pattern here?
Princeton Professor Eddie Glaude said yesterday there are dead bodies in the Mississippi River because of James Eastland.
Not much "civility" in the bottom of the Mississippi River.
Curtis Flowers in jail 23 years.
Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court 28 years.
Joe Biden, unapologetic player in U.S. politics 46 years.
These things don't inspire confidence in democracy.
210
@fast/furious
Thank you for saying why I have not trusted Biden for all these years. The man is a player. Or a tool. In every case he is willing to sacrifice the lives of women and people of color to gain political ground, and then brags about it?
Clueless or unprincipled? Maybe both.
20
@Jan Priddy Thank you for speaking up. Biden has been biding his time for too long. No Joe, he must go. I wish Clarence Thomas could go with him.
17
@fast/furious
Sure, Biden is a pretty lousy guy in a lot of ways, and I hope he isn't the Democrat nominee.
But if he is, you bet I'm supporting him completely. Trump has to go.
41
Why are prosecutors and defense lawyers allowed to filter juries like this? I propose a new rule: once members of a jury panel have been filtered "for cause" ( e.g. prior relationship to one of the trial participants, something that happened to me once) the jury members should be picked at random from the remaining pool. No rigging of the jury .
A recent story in the NYTimes illustrates the absurdity of the system. In a trial of a bad cop, the lawyer tried to get an accountant on the jury, assuming that accountants would be conservative and biased in favor of the police. It turned out that the accountant was a liberal who despised bad cops.
5
Justice Thomas in his minority opinion would blame the media for illuminating what was at the time a perceived injustice which the majority opinion has now concurred was an actual injustice. It is justice that should be blind not the justices.
6
It looks like Justice Kavanaugh, like Sandra Day O'Connor, may turn out to be another one of those justices who emerge in a different way then the nominating president intended.
Following his conspiratorial comments about "the Clintons" during his confirmation hearing, I expected the worst. But predicting the eventual voting record of a Supreme Court Justice pick seems quite difficult indeed.
1
One would imagine that someone with the life story of Justice Clarence Thomas would have great empathy for disadvantaged people while serving on the highest court of the land. It is so surprising that his judicial record shows perhaps the least empathy to the poor or to women or to African Americans.
Great hardship can bring out out nobility in some people but it can make people cruel and bitter. Justice Thomas sadly belongs to the second category.
10
Thomas seems to be on a mission to label as many Supreme Court precedents as "manifestly incorrect" or "clearly wrongly decided" as possible.
5
It's obvious the prosecutors office along with it's chief prosecutor spent a considerable effort to deny this man his civil rights and due process to a fair jury and trial by excluding black potential jurors. This was a concerted efforts in all the trials this man has gone through, the prosecutor is guilty of denying this man of his basic rights to an impartial jury. Why an average of 29 questions to perspective black jurors to an average 1 for white perspective jurors, answer looking for reasons to exclude black jurors.
2
But at the end do we know if the defendant was definitely guilty or not? With these cases being so politically charged, we end up losing focus on the real issue: there was a vicious crime, there was a suspect. Was the evidence overwhelming? Was the man guilty? If so, it shouldn’t matter if the jury were all-white, all-black or made up of Chinese immigrants for that matter. Facts should be facts, irrespective of politics and race.
1
Please listen to the In The Dark podcast before wondering if justice has been served. There was clear evidence of another perpetrator.
1
and the facts are few and far between and mostly made up by the prosecutor. in fact there are no evidence of a factual basis in this case, all circumstantial evidence and may of those jailhouse witnesses agree that they perjured themselves. there is no forensic evidence linking flowers with the murders!!
2
Some in the Court are indeed connected to the respective Republican administrations. It's the "New World Order".
Although I am not a lawyer I believe that I can read about all the cases on the Supreme Court's docket and accurately guess how Clarence Thomas will vote each case.
Clarence Thomas is, in a sense, a more decent version of Donald Trump. He is stuck in his own beliefs and refuses to be swayed inspite of overwhelming academic evidence to the contrary. What a mistake sitting on the Supreme Court!
6
So it was Judge Kavanaugh who felt the sting of his fellow conservatives, who called his opinion “manifestly incorrect.”
“If the court’s opinion today has a redeeming quality,” Justice Thomas wrote, “it is this: The state is perfectly free to convict Curtis Flowers again.”
I'm a conservative, but Justice Thomas certainly doesn't speak for me in this case. His quote above is very telling. He seems to be suggesting that Flowers is obviously guilty, so justice has been served.
I wouldn't be upset if heard such a comment at the 19th hole, but I'd like to expect better from a Supreme Court Justice. Justice cannot be achieved by injust means.
But in the end, the court made the right call. It's a perfect example of how it's supposed to work.
Thank you to SCOTUS, and thank you to the POTUS for appointing Justice Kavanaugh. He is certainly among the best and the brightest!
2
One of the reasons to have a diverse membership on the Supreme Court is to have sensitivity to the issues particular to our various minority groups. It's sad that the only black member of the Court is insensitive to race discrimination against seating black jurors in a murder trial.
4
That Evans finds the protection of political party squabbles is a menace to justice. That squabble is Mitch McConnell who cites a war fought for civil rights as restitution resulting in monetary awards to slaveowners and a century plus of Jim Crow to slaves. That squabble is Jeff Sessions privatizing jails to incarcerate those with no cash for bail while a President* of the United States continues to stand by his defamation of the Central Park Five.
A line has been drawn. Which side are you on? We never saw ourselves as an apartheid state until these people made it obvious.
4
I believe that the selection of jurors based on race has no place in the justice system and the payment of reparations based on race has no place in the justice system!
2
“Correlation is not causation”..yes, of course. But 1 question for accepted jurors, who happen to be white, vs 29 questions for those not accepted, who happen to be black, correlates to intent. Justice Thomas, you must come up with something better.
4
Good for the Court. Now the Mississippi Bar should disbar Mr. Evans.
3
A number of Supreme Court Justices have been full of surprises- and evolve over time.
What was utterly impossible to figure out was how it wasn’t unanimous today.
Thomas, on the other hand has yet to surprise- not an ounce of compassion there.
14
Democrats will be held accountable for their disgraceful treatment of Justice Kavanaugh.
Bank on it.
7
@SCPro: Just like Republicans will not be held accountable for their disgraceful treatment of Merrick Garland? Bank on that!
3
@SCPro, at this moment, Democrats are pleased with Kavanaugh, and not surprised by Thomas
It appears that the reporter picked some of the quotations from Kavanaugh's opinion for the irony. Those quotations could be used with only slight modifications to attack Kavanaugh's own testimony during his confirmation hearing. The most telling is: “...a series of factually inaccurate explanations...can be telling. So it is here.” As could: “We cannot ignore that history. We cannot take that history out of the case.”
4
Anybody remember Hernandez vs State of Texas, the 1954 Supreme Court case?
In it, Mexican American civil rights lawyers led by Carlos Cadena argued successfully that a Tejano (Mexican-descent Texan, w/ ancestors already in Texas long before Anglos settled there) convicted murderer, Pete Hernandez, deserved a 2nd trial because there were only White Anglo Saxon Protestants and no fellow Tejanos in the jury.
In Hernandez' retrial, the factual evidence presented to a Tejano-laced jury still led to Hernandez being justly convicted.
That said, Mississippi Prosecutor Evans saying that he excluded the vast majority of black juror candidates in 6 trials because "most potential black jurors were extended family or friends of Mr. Flowers" is a lousy excuse.
Move the trial then to another in-state venue -
Mr. Flowers cannot possibly be related to, know, or be known to all of the state's black citizens!
Also, is Doug Evans the only prosecutor the state of Missippi has?
Whatever stopped the state from assigning another prosecutor in any of the 6 trials?
If the factual evidence is strong enough to prove Mr. Flowers really did this, then any competent prosecutor facing an all-black jury can still get a conviction - without ever needing to unethically rig the jury selection process.
Remember Hernandez vs State of TX!!!
#evidenceoverrulesaffinity
8
"which said that Mr. Flowers was plainly guilty", except for that wasn't what Thomas and Gorsuch were asked to decide upon! That decision is up to the other court. The SC was asked to decide if the discrimination in the jury selection was constitutional.
14
I don't know if Doug Evans's complete, career prosecutorial record shows a clear and overwhelming pattern of discrimination against blacks (either as jurors or defendants or victims), but one that is for sure: Clarence Thomas's complete, career judicial record does.
Justice Clarence Thomas must've voted against blacks -- in civil cases as in criminal cases, in every aspect that touches upon blacks from civil rights to economic rights -- 99.99% of the time, often times in the minority, sometimes all alone as the sole dissenter.
If a judge could be removed for racial animosity towards blacks based purely on a statistical analysis of his decisions -- in language and in voting -- that judge would be Clarence Thomas.
Frankly, Justice Thomas ought to recuse himself on every case that involves blacks.
37
@LdV This sums it up accurately. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-astonishing-opinion-on-a-racist-mississippi-prosecutor
11
Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh, for doing the right thing. Curtis Flowers is innocent and deserves his freedom. Please let this be the first step toward a new day in America.
3
A suggestion for Justice Thomas. Go spend some time in Mississippi.
21
Justice Thomas. I'm reading Howard Zinn's History of the United States for the first time, and I realize there have been times in our history when the Supreme Court was even more biased and incompetent. But Justice Thomas is up there, and he will be remembered.
26
I watched the Anita Hill hearing. There was no doubt in my mind she was telling the truth. If Biden and the rest of the old boys in the Senate had actually listened to her, Thomas would never have been seated on the SC.
Diversity is a good thing, but Thomas wasn’t qualified.
32
@Melissa -- so you agree that blacks sometimes are not qualified. Yet the imperative for diversity is why Thomas is on the Supreme Court. Anita Hill's testimony was dismissed because no one dared challenge his defiant accusation that they were conducting a public lynching of him. And what has the fact of his "diverseness" done to further justice for blacks?
4
when the Boston Symphony Orchestra tried new candidates, they audition behind a curtain, so nobody knows who that person is.
16
Clarence Thomas is to the Supreme Court as Ben Carson is to HUD. This isn't about race, it's about incompetence.
34
Gorsuch should have to sign his decisions as Merrick Garland.
11
So Kavanaugh is a hero now. ...A "jury of his peers" was meant to mean identical as to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, education, profession, health status, place of residence, martial status, political party... how ridiculous do we have to get?
1
The reporter, Adam Liptak, was right to bring up the Batson rule in this article, though I’m disappointed that he didn’t take a sentence or two to contextualize it. The Batson rule itself is extremely easy to get around and is its manipulation is rampant in our justice system. Almost no judges ever challenge the “race neutral” reason for a peremptory strike and the strike themselves don’t even need to be factually coherent. I’ve once heard of a prosecutor strike a black man for being a Freemason. When the judge asked the potential juror if he was indeed a Freemason, the juror responded that he was, in fact, a brick mason. The judge still let the strike stand. This happens every day in our justice system.
6
I thought Kavanaugh would simply follow but clearly he has a mind of his own. I’m pleased to see this development.
21
The goal in my mind is to arrive at a jury who will judge a case on its merits alone.
Alas, there may be no guaranteed winning strategy, only guesses, as to how to best achieve this.
But surely there are better ways of assessing fair-mindedness than by using indirect means like skin color.
2
About 150 years ago, Senator Charles Sumner repeatedly tried to pass his Civil Rights bill. One of its components was equality in jury representation.
Just how far back are Republicans trying to push this country?
Lincoln isn't just rolling over in his grave. He is about to start haunting these Trump and far right Republicans.
5
Apparently Republicans, unlike Democrats, want equal racial representation on juries. Kavanaugh and the conservative vote to overturn the conviction must really bother liberals.
2
“The media often seeks ‘to titillate rather than to educate and inform”. This statement made by Thomas is beyond the pale, it’s just amazing to me that a black man, who’s been around during the Jim Crowe era, has seen his people wrongfully imprisoned, lynched for crimes they didn’t commit. “Three of those trials ended in convictions reversed on appeal, and one in a mistrial, is also telling of the strength of Mr Evans case, so four trials ended up being tossed, usually after the second time, they give up, and that’s because they generally don’t have enough to convict.
It’s Justice Thomas’s opinions that should cause all of us pause, because it’s obvious that Thomas isn’t the independent thinker that a Supreme Court Justice should be. When Thomas says “If the court’s opinion today has a redeeming quality,” Justice Thomas wrote, “it is this: The state is perfectly free to convict Curtis Flowers again.” it demonstrates that Thomas isn’t really isn’t for blind justice, to him stacking the deck against a person of color is okay.
8
This is a good show of why Presidente Trump´s selection of these conservative magistrate judges to the highest office of the land, was worth every bit of the ordeal it meant for this two men, particularly Kavanaugh. Also this shows that both Trump and this conservative bloc are not racists and have never been racists. Hopefully President Trump has more chances to no minate men and women like them to thisCourt. Just look at the gravitas that exists in their decisions, their reasonings versus the enormous lightness that exists in those from the lliberal bloc.
6
Just a reminder that Merrick Garland should be on this court.
27
What a pathetic spectacle it is to witness Clarence Thomas, through his commentary, continuing to apologize to White America, for being a Black Supreme Court Justice.
17
Prosecutors in Mississippi are elected. Voters in Mississippi's Fifth Circuit Court District first elected in Doug Evans in 1991. They have been re-electing him ever since.
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/06/12/the-rise-and-reign-of-doug-evans A majority of the voters in the 5the Circuit clearly don't have a problem with his racist practices, or the tax dollars that it costs them. They should be ashamed. And the Mississippi Bar Association sits by all the while.
14
Justice Thomas sounds like a bad broken record.
6
Before anyone serves on a jury they should see “12 Angry Men” starring Henry Fonda. It is a remarkable firm that showed uncanny insight into the hearts of men.
8
Each time a sound legal opinion flows from the Roberts Court avoiding the number 5-4 the better. Thomas and Gorsuch will have their day in the sun punishing defendants, labor unions, gays, voting rights, the environment, and Roe v Wade.
4
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a good majority opinion.
13
The Batson rule/challenge was made retroactive to criminal cases pending at the time of its 1986 decision, to prevent violation of Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment (1868). SCOTUS's next decision (or Congress's law)-make Batson retroactive to 1868 (or 7/4/1776) to void all convictions of deceased African-Americans and require review of convictions of those living. This would contribute to Congressional hearings on reparations.
2
This is the distilled essence of the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
A liberal would rather let 5 guilty people go free rather than convict and execute 1 guilty person.
A conservative would rather execute 5 innocents rather than let 1 guilty person go free.
13
Given that Clarence Thomas got his position by charging that the Senate confirmation hearing for him was a “high-tech lynching,” it is indeed ironic that he should turn around and display such shockingly vengeful and unjust assessments in this case. Reminds me of the New Testament parable of the borrower forgiven his large loan by his lord, then turns around and has no mercy toward his creditor.
17
Kavanaugh is showing independence. That's encouraging whereas Gorsuch - like Thomas & Alito - has confirmed our worse suspicions, acting like the dutiful ideologue that he is.
15
Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “We cannot ignore that history."
Here's hoping he continues to consider history.
10
There's something great that Chief Justice Roberts did: He assigned the (incredibly controversial) newcomer Justice Kavanaugh the majority opinion in this case possibly prompted by Justice Kavanaugh’s longstanding interest in the issue. When he was a law student at Yale, Justice Kavanaugh wrote an article in The Yale Law Journal calling for vigorous enforcement of a 1986 Supreme Court decision barring race discrimination in jury selection. Roberts also might have given K. a change to redeem himself through an area of expertise. Against the crazily idiotic protestations of Clarence Thomas Kavanaugh argued as committed justice with knowledge of precedence, unequivocal informedness and engaged practicality concerning legal precedence preserving diversity injury selection. He proved himself a legal scholar and supreme justice. As someone who could not understand the lowness of character and legal honor he showed last year during his confirmation hearings, I am impressed at his attempts to be convincing legal mind and at the step of personal redemption that comes across. I wish him well as a judge independent of ideological partisanship.
24
What in the world does Clarence Thomas see when looks in a mirror?
15
Certainly he doesn’t see a man of color, people like Thomas think that they are accepted into that rarefied air, but he isn’t. Elites pay him respect in public but talk about him behind his back. What’s worse, is he’s clearly not a free thinker.
1
Replace Justice Clarence Thomas with a robot.
19
Tricky here. What if a prosecutor believes based on statistical evidence that members of a certain race are likely to acquit? Can she use her challenges to exclude them? The SC says no, which seems to deprive her of fully using the challenge tool at her disposal.
1
It stuns me how people see what they want to see. In fact, what they are saying is that if use racial discrimination as a means of excluding a potential jurist, that’s unconstitutional. The prosecutor waved 45 of 46 black jurist, on average he asked a potential black jurist 29 questions, and asked whites 1. The prosecutor Mr Evans couldn’t come up with enough excuses as to why he kept excluding potential black jurists. By law Evans can exclude a certain number without explanation (as stated in the article) once you exceed that number Evans needs to explain his reasons. So no it doesn’t keep a prosecutor from objecting anyone for any reason.
2
@False Profit Remember, you are supposed to be innocent till PROVED guilty. Whether a jury is likely to convict or not shouldn't matter if the prosecutor has the evidence. Even if a jury finds for innocent against overwhelming evidence he can move for a Motion For Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict.
I covered courts for 18 years as a reporter at four different newspapers.
In 2005, I wrote a story on the jury system at the Ventura Count Courts in California.
Why jurors were mostly older white people, and most of the criminal defendants were Hispanics.
Court administrators couldn't provide any answers other than people in some regions of the county don't answer their jury summons, predominately where Hispanics reside.
So, where were the areas where people didn't respond to the summonses?
Didn't have that information because they didn't keep track of how many summonses were going out or how many were returned by prospective jurors.
We don't keep track of addresses, they said.
What about zip codes? Nope.
Gradually, after the story was published about jury pools in Ventura County, jurors started to look like the population of Ventura County.
There were more than a dozen judges on the bench in Ventura County, predominately white men. Two or three minorities.
Most recently, there have been improvements on the Ventura County bench.
But here are 2016 facts in California:
Blacks: (6.6 percent in 2015 compared to 4.4 percent in 2006);
Hispanic: (9.9 percent in 2015 compared to 6.3 percent in 2006 according to the Judicial Branch of the California Courts report in 2016.
Hispanics comprise the majority of the population in so-called "progressive" California.
Friday's Supreme Court ruling just sent a strong message to the nation's courts — diversify.
7
But it’s a crime to ignore a jury summons....so how does that wash with what the county was saying. In Ventura county do just let people ignore a jury summons...
2
Have there ever been a Supreme Court justice so cruel, so cavalier about suffering, so determined that no justice should ever fall on the most vulnerable, the most needy, the poorest in spirit as Clarence Thomas? He has no consistent pattern of thinking - if the precedent supports his opinion, he supports it, if the precedent does not support his opinion, he decries it. He is intellectually dishonest and weak. And he is mean-spirited. What a small, small man.
48
My sentiments exactly, Barbara. From the evidence I have it is as though Thomas lacks any trace of empathy whatsoever - even for an innocent man. I strongly recommend listening to the podcast for anyone who claims this is a “tricky” situation. On the contrary it is an egregious miscarriage of justice. Anyone with a pulse would be able to recognise the shocking racism of Doug Evans and the state of Mississippi.
5
Good work from Kavanaugh in this one, and nice to see the court work as it should.
16
Ok, does anyone else think six times at bat is way too many here? Sounds like a very sick version of the movie "Groundhog Day". I though the Constitution guaranteed a quick and speedy trial which this wasn't by a Mississippi country mile. I thought Mississippi was a relatively poor state. I guess when prosecuting a black man again and again and again, etc. no expense is spared. Didn't anyone question Evans' competence when the first 3 trials were reverse on appeal? If I was him I'd be embarrassed.
Also not clearly stated in the article is how long Flowers has been held in jail while these trials occurred. It does state the first trial was in 1997. I sure hope Flowers hasn't been in jail since 1997 as these trials occurred. This decision was a good idiot test for the Supreme Court justices. Anyone who can think continual redo trials is perfectly ok needs their head examined.
16
Listen to the podcast In the Dark. Doug Evans has absolute discretion over who tries the case. It is an abomination
5
20 years....thats how long he’s been sentenced to death row.
3
@P Lock
Flowers has been in death row for more than 20 years as Doug Evans and the state of Mississippi tries to execute him for a crime he didn’t commit.
4
Once again, Thomas shows the intellectual heft of a feather, and Gorsuch shows himself to be a misanthrope
28
Justice Thomas’s philosophy is no different than the old man down the block yelling at kids to get off his lawn.
15
Clarence Thomas: The gift from George H. W. Bush who keeps on giving.
21
More and more, the irrationality of Justice Thomas’s flights of fancy in his solo opinions suggests a seriously disturbed mindset.
16
And your proof is? Seems like you’re just speculating outside of any real expertise.
1
@Charles Hinkle
When is a life term really over for a Supreme Court justice? What are the vital signs?
1
What do you think the term lifetime appointment means. Until they either die, or retire, then die of old age. This country needs to move past this lifetime appointment garbage.
1
Bret Kavanaugh had only been on the Supreme Court ten minutes, and he already shows more maturity and ability to get to the point of the case than Clarence Thomas does after all these years. This does make me feel a teeny bit better about Kavanaugh, I will admit. Clarence Thomas has never learned.
19
As we see, Thomas continues to channel his mentor, Scalia:
Scalia: Actual innocence is not a bar to execution. (Yes--a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice said that. Out loud.)
Thomas: He's guilty, so he doesn't deserve a fair trial.
These are/were supposed to be the best legal minds in the country.
17
@VB, I intended to write "Scalia," not "Alito." My mistake. (The two are often hard to tell apart.)
@VB, I found your quotation of Scalia so shocking that I decided to fact check it.
In fact, NO JUSTICE of the Supreme Court is recorded to have uttered such a statement or any to that effect, either in written opinion or away from the bench, whether Scalia or anyone else.
As with most legends there is a grain of truth to it, but it has nothing to do with Alito, and I will not burden this comment with an explanation. An online search of the quotation provides a quick answer to those interested enough to know to find out.
1
True, correlation does not in itself prove causation, but ... twenty-nine to one? I think Thoreau wrote that circumstantial evidence can sometimes be very persuasive, as, for example, when you find a trout in the milk.
5
The media, criticized here by Justice Thomas, wasn't the issue here. If Thomas is as worried about appearances as he says, perhaps he should try harder to adhere to settled law, which usually 'appears' to be overridden by his ideology.
9
Yes, and please rule the same for women, who are disproportionately excluded from juries in rape trials because they are disproportionately victims of rape. Nobody questions men about their history of raping.
26
@Andalucia, As a former sex crimes prosecutor I always preferred men to women on a jury when the case involved an adult rape victim. Women tended to judge the victim very harshly. I had hoped that attitude would have changed, but a friend recently served as a juror in a rape case. He said that the women on the panel, who were in their twenties and thirties, were downright nasty towards the victim. The experience made him never want to serve on a jury again.
49
@Mary There is a theory that women jurors on rape cases can be prejudiced against female victims because they don't want to identify with the victim.
3
It is beyond insane that this man remains incarcerated.
It is time to free him.
Six trails?!?! I get that mistrails and retrials don't technically run afoul of double jeopardy, but come on!
"Free country" my foot.
4
Justice Thomas stated: "“the majority forgets that correlation is not causation.”
Justice Thomas fails to understand that in this case, "Correlation manifests causation beyond reasonable doubt."
8
Clarence Thomas is the strongest case for the abolishment of lifetime tenure for the justices of the Supreme Court
50
My thoughts exactly.....
4
Doesn't the US claim to be 'the land of the free'?
Well, maybe if you're white perhaps.
6
"Justice Thomas, in a part of his dissent in which spoke only for himself, wrote that he had profound doubts about whether the Batson decision had been correctly decided in the first place."
Justice Thomas shows once again that his is a singular legal mind possessing insights into Constitutional law that evade his lesser brethren. This country should be grateful to have such a judicial scholar and moderating influence on the bench. I know I am. I only hope that rumors of his imminent retirement are premature.
2
Surely you jest
5
I thought this was a great bit of sarcasm until I realised it wasn’t!!!
2
@S Lamb
Good grief. Your initial impression was the correct one.
1
The foundation of this country is racism how much more evidence do we need.
Racism in plain sight. Nothing changes
12
How interesting. After all the shrieking about how divided the court would be, decisions on along perceived party lines along comes this.
Justice Thomas proclaiming that Mr Flowers is obviously guilty as well as there was nothing wrong with the prosecutor's actions in jury screening. Then the majority decision, which included 3 of the supposedly rightwing justices, that there was a problem. Based on what little I read it certainly does sound like there was a problem. And then the revelation that Justice Kavanaugh's interest in the Boston vs Kentucky ruling.
What I do find interesting are two things. 5 trials and a 6th one on the way. That costs a lot of money. Wonder if this is one of those "promise" things like the Angola 5 where the prosecutor promised they'd never go free.
And a complete lack of even a cursory mention of how/why they picked up and decided to prosecute Mr. Flowers.
2
If you want to see more in-depth Starz, has a show that’s called “The Wrong Man” one of the attorneys on that show, was on the OJ defense team. Flowers, isn’t the killer, there is no physical evidence, only someone else’s saying it was Flowers. Which is why that case was overturned on appeal three times, and once it was a mistrial. So four time out of 6 that prosecutor lost his case, so it’s not that strong, he just needed an all white jury.........one black person on that jury, wouldn’t vote against 11 white men, without wondering if he’d survive the next week.
You are mistaken, it’s been 6 trials, if they prosecute again, that will be number 7.
1
Prosecutors when they knowingly and intentionally violate the law in order to get convictions should not be immune from suit. Flowers should be able through crowding funding to hire attorneys to file a civil suit for damages against this prosecutor. Such a law should provide that a certain percentage of damages assessed against such government officials must be paid by the individual himself, Judges would still act as gate keepers - as they do in every case - so the argument that criminals would bring frivolous actions and tie up the courts is not gonna happen. The law could give a prosecutor the right to seek early dismissal such as occurs in SLAP lawsuits in California. But there has got to be a way to put a brake on prosecutors who use their enormous power unjustly as this man does.
7
If it's true no evidence linked this guy to the murder, and, all his previous convictions were overturned, (unless there's some major unknown fact,) it should MORE than suffice to grant his freedom.
I think the average person would wonder why it's taking so long to release this guy. And those of above-average legal-minds seem to consistently agree and judge there's sufficient cause to have his conviction(s) overturned --- five times...
And, NOW the SUPREME COURT has overturned his SIXTH conviction.
Peace, love, forgiveness, all the way around would be a good thing...
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -- Blackstone, 1760.
107
Does not such a decision
institutionalise the notion of Race
and that, somehow, someway,
the Races do not see the legal world in the same way ?
Why, if indeed it was the case, was the same prosecutor
involved in all six trials ?
Should not a new judge and a new prosecutor be required ?
6
That Mr Evans - who reminds me of Mike Nifong’s professional turpitude - is able to try an individual six times is more of a miscarriage of justice than anything here. I’m speechless with astonishment this oppressive abuse of power in a public office is not more of a concern.
7
As a former prosecutor and now practicing attorney, I have selected dozens of juries of all types of people. Every juror comes into a case with some biases, something that every person has, and not all of such biases are constitutionally problematic. Discrimination on race, age or gender is and makes a juror unfit to sit. The idea that lawyers can be exempt from the same disqualifying factors, as Thomas seems to suggest, is appalling. Thomas, who I do not believe ever tried a case to a jury, has shown himself to be incredibly unqualified to sit as a Supreme Court justice. I need not comment, nor do I believe others should, on some notion of racial insensitivity to his fellow blacks. That argument masks the true flaws in his insufficiency and only sparks angry defenses from the folks on the hard conservative wing of the bar. Rather, look to underpinnings of his arguments to see a man with shallow constitutional intellect and little skill as a lawyer. Thomas, when he was head of the EEOC was invited by one of my law professors, a classmate at Yale, to speak to our class. My only recollection of his talk was turning to my friend and saying how is this guy head of anything so important as the EEOC. Apparently he hasn’t gotten smarter over the years.
299
Wow. Just, wow. Thomas STILL doesn’t even mask his inadequacies and yet sits on that bench.
17
Thomas has never tried a case, he isn’t a litigator. He headed up an office where other lawyers did the work.
18
@Steven Harfenist
Thank you for voicing it so well.
I always read the dissent opinions in SC cases and somehow quite a few belong to Thomas & Gorsuch (the later's writing is showy, by the way, at times emphasis on what he thinks law expects, not the reality of the moment- or what could be).
Thomas's opinions, I found wanting in their legal acumen. I thought perhaps it was my own bias against him (because of Anita Hill hearings).
Then, a friend, former Asst AG, confirmed my opinion and we went over some of the points, where casual derivation and law view points were just not rhyming.
Your comment re-affirms.
21
Justice Thomas is consistent and reliable!
He will consistently leave you shaking your head as to why he sits on the highest bench, let alone be a judge.
17
Mr. Evans: As one Mississippian lawyer to another I have to ask: Isn't 6 times enough? Isn't it time to give it up if there is any doubt at all about Flowers guilt (as many think there is). Surely it's time for you to move on with your life and let Flowers move on with his. And one more thing: don't embarrass us whatever you do.
3
Wow, podcasts setting SCOTUS’s docket. I’ll bet Steve Jobs never saw that one coming.
2
"a jury of his peers." Enough said.
5
The most stunning and disheartening facet of this decision is how Justice Thomas, a black man, blithely genuflects to the implausible explanations offered by a clearly bigoted white Mississippi prosecutor.
9
A 7th trial just may be the 7th circle of hell for Mr. Flowers.
2
Clarence Thomas is apparently the only black man in America who not only has never experienced racial bias, he is incapable of conceiving that it exists.
If he wasn't real, I swear, Dave Chappelle would have to make him up.
16
Clarence Thomas scares the living daylights out of me.
8
If there was a seven-justice majority, how could there have been dissents? Thomas' dissent seems to negate completely the logic of the ruling.
1
Not yet charged, but guilty!
Prosecutor Evans is guilty of stupidity.
How many more trials he needs before he realizes that he needs to follow the law?
3
Thomas is seriously lacking empathy and refuses to believe or allow himself to believe that the prosecution employed racist tactics.
4
Mississippi rebels: It stopped being 1840 a long time ago.
5
'Here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of.'
-Phil Ochs
"Here's to the State of Mississippi," 1965
3
Thomas. Constantly terrible and on the wrong side of justice.
18
The accompanying photo/chart is wrong.
You have the Progressive block (the gals)
You have the Liberal block (Breyer)
Then you have the conservative block (they got this right).
There.
Fixed it for you.
1
Isn't it illegal to try someone for the same crime twice—let alone six times?
2
@Teekins: Only if the person has been found not-guilty.
And even in that case you can have the Feds swooping down with charges like civil rights violations.
1
I just re-read Justice Thomas's statement in the article as follows: “Any appearance that this court gives closer scrutiny to cases with significant media attention will only exacerbate these problems and undermine the fairness of criminal trials.” Note: "undermine the fairness of criminal trials" - as though the white prosecutor, who has been found guilty of misconduct and has been permitted - by the state of Mississippi -to re-try the same black defendant six times - SIX - to an all white jury -would not, according to Justice Thomas, himself be undermining "the fairness of a criminal trial." On the contrary, Justice Thomas, it is the media that has brought this appalling set of racially motivated judicial circumstances to public attention because Mr. Flowers has been unable to receive a Constitutionally protected fair, untainted and balanced trial or jury to hear his court case due to a white, racist prosecutor and a "justice system" in Mississippi that permits this outrage to continue unchecked. Justice Thomas, shame on you, sir. It may be time for you to step off the Supreme Court bench with such thoughtless and inane statements. How can you, in good conscience arrive, on a daily basis, to the highest court in the United States and hear cases with such skewed bias? You, sir, are an embarrassment at the highest judicial level.
20
George H.W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas was (and still is) one of the most disdainful episodes in judicial nominations. Missouri's Senator John Danforth pushed for this incompetent to replace the first African American to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court; the esteemed and intellectually superior man of law, Thurgood Marshall:
It was a specious and insulting , "Any black will do" proposition.
Clarence Thomas has proven time-and-again to be an intellectually boorish, arrogant and miserable human being with no pretense of wanting to do anything other than disrupt.
30
Civilized? How can there be fairness if prosecutor keep their scorecard as to how many trial ended in conviction, life amd death. For all the rule of the law Pakistan has a fairer system then USA. Oh, this must hurt.
1
So we have the Liberal Bloc and a "conservative" bloc? Three conservatives seem to be maintaining a tenuous relationship with reality and precedent. Thomas has never respected either - a talent recognized early in his career by Republican strategists who groomed him as the replacement for Thurgood Marshall. He was then placed before a simpering panel of Democratic Senators (led by you-know-who) that didn't have the guts to confront a black man who was guided by racist ideology. Gorsuch continues to prove himself to be nothing more than a political hack.
So what do we have? Four Liberals, three Conservatives, a man determined to be the anti-Thurgood Marshall, and a political hack whose role is to make sure the man that appointed him is never punished for his crimes.
2
Obviously the prosecutor was lying through his teeth when he gave the reasons he said he struck almost all black jurors from deciding the case.
The next question is what is the real reason the prosecutor removed almost all black jurors from hearing the case?
My guess is that the prosecutor believes that black persons are more likely than white people to credit the "They are picking on me because I am black" defense.
See People of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson on that point.
2
Obviously the prosecutor was lying through his teeth when he gave the reasons he said he struck almost all black jurors from deciding the case.
The next question is what is the real reason the prosecutor removed almost all black jurors from hearing the case?
My guess is that the prosecutor believes that black persons are more likely than white people to credit the "They are picking on me because I am black" defense.
See People of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson on that point.
The Flowers v. Mississippi case broke no new legal ground. The Supreme Court did not find the Mississippi prosecutor was wrong to strike black jurors. It found he was wrong to strike a specific black juror.
The prosecution struck black juror Carolyn Wright because she knew several defense witnesses and had worked at Wal-Mart with the defendant’s father. But Flower’s lawyer showed that three white prospective jurors also knew individuals involved in the case and the state asked them no individual questions about their connection to witnesses.
The court concluded: "All that we need to decide, and all that we do decide, is that all of the relevant facts and circumstances taken together establish that the trial court at Flowers’ sixth trial committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. In reaching that conclusion, we break no new legal ground.”
8
“The media often seeks ‘to titillate rather than to educate and inform,’ ” Shame on you, Clarence Thomas. The very intent of the "In the Dark" podcast was to educate and inform the public about the shameful actions in this case. And it did just that. People are outraged and anxious for this decision because we have been made aware. A light was shone on injustice. You are so insulting to assume the public was simply entertained.
7
Even in Alabama the state Attorney General's Office would have stepped in by now and taken the case away from the local prosecutor. I guess cases like this are why our state motto remains, "Thank God for Mississippi."
12
Thomas's dissent begins with his recounting with grisly pleasure the horrendous details of the crimes that Flowers may not have committed, and then he sniffs “The media often seeks to titillate rather than to educate and inform'.
It's not merely about Thomas's lack of self awareness of complaining that news stories about racist prosecutors are mere titillations, while his waving the bloody shirt to open his dissent is good judicial writing and not the stuff of incendiary politics and yellow journalism.
It's a bigger problem with the death penalty, where the crimes are so horrendous that people's irrationality takes over and they (including Thomas) need SOMEONE to die for it.
13
This case is the perfect example of the overwhelming need for bail reform Nationwide. I spent the first 15 years of my career as a criminal defense attorney. Bail is used to punish, despite the fact that the law dictates that the "purpose is twofold-to protect the public from dangerous/habitual offenders as well as to assure the defendant's appearance in Court."
This case in particular, the prosecutor at the very least has been inappropriate in his handling of this matter, but more probably has committed his own crimes because of his need to blame someone. Hopefully, the broadcasting of Mr. Flowers' case, such as the podcast, and this decision, will at the very least start the conversations with respect to criminal justice reform in this Country!
2
Having listened to all of "In the Dark" (and other podcasts about wrongful convictions such as "Undisclosed," which is should be required listening for all Americans, especially prosecutors) the fact that Justice Thomas contends that Curtis Flowers is "plainly guilty" is to me one of the most contentious rulings he has ever written. Most stunning about Justice Thomas's dissent and his clear bias against members of his own race (see his support for striking down the equal voting rights ac.) is that as a black man he could be in the same situation as Curtis Flowers: a man who has spent most of his life on death row for a crime he didn't commit, only because he is black and the prosecutor has a morbid, decades old vendetta out for keeping him there. Thomas, a black man, seems to support the institutionalized racism of the court system. The irony is colossal.
Listen to "In the Dark" and "Undisclosed" (undisclosed-podcast.com) and decide for yourself if there is equal justice under the law for black people in the US. The prosecutorial and police misconduct and the hurdles that poor, black and brown people and other minorities have that whites and the wealthy don't makes one realize that America's courts are far from fair. When Ta-Nehisi Coates spoke about reparations on Juneteenth, this is one of the "far-reaching harms" of slavery he is talking about.
8
Easy for me to say, but I hope there is a 7th trial. And he is acquitted. I do not see Evans, a coward as evidenced by his continued violation of Batson, choosing to retry. A fair jury with the top notch representation and media coverage sure to be part of a 7th trial will make acquittal more likely than ever.
4
Increasingly, "Conservative" and "Law" are getting mutually exclusive.
4
I liked it better when Justice Thomas never opened his mouth except to sip a can of coke. With him, silence is golden.
20
Clarence Thomas's citing the regularly used statistically illiterate trope in his “the majority forgets that correlation is not causation" is the observation of a statistically ignorant man trying to cover his biases with what sounds intelligent. First, yes that's true that in a two variable simple regression analysis (e.g., do crowing roosters bring the dawn or does the dawn cause the roosters to crow), just because correlation is statistically sound, of course doesn’t mean that the roosters bring the dawn). But, it’s silly on the face of it to apply that reasoning to complex comparisons of the ratio of black to white jury member selections where prosecutors routinely did strike all black prospective jurors in cases involving black defendants in Mississippi with its widely known and advertised history of racism.
And, if Clarence Thomas truly did have a knowledge of statistics rather just statistical tropes, he’d know that statistically robust cause and effect connections can be made when the many more than just two variables that are almost always present in complex relationships are included and analyzed.
10
I am underwhelmed with the ideologues on the US Supreme Court as the exclusion of jurors because of race has been matter of precedent since Batson v. Kentucky (1986)...why do we have keep revisiting this issue?
3
The SCt keeps revisiting the issues because lower courts haven’t gotten with the program.
3
There’s a relatively simple and effective method here. You place potential jurors in a room by themselves. Neither the defense or prosecution can actually see the juror. You can also - if you wanted to go this far - synthesize the voice on juror responses. Black, white, man, woman, the lawyers would have no idea of the race and possible the gender of the prospective juror.
3
Great idea. I believe auditions for musicians have gone this route already.
1
Kudos (and sympathy) to our excellent, humanistic, liberal Supreme Court Judges Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor for being able to go face-to-face with their biased, discriminatory conservative colleagues.
I wonder if all 9 judges ever get together for lunch. If I were Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, or Sotomayor, I'd down the extra-strength antacid beforehand.
4
When you consider that a) Justice Kavanaugh is committed to fighting racism in the jury selection process, and b) Justice Thomas seems to have consistent anti-black bias, you realize "identity politics" don't work. You can't and shouldn't assume you know someone's opinion based on the color of their skin, their gender, or anything else. I hope we can keep this in mind during primary season.
18
@FMcT
Exactly. The rationale that black jurors wouldn't have convicted him is false, and leads to extremely biased jury selection - while claiming it's doing the opposite.
Should female accusers only be judged by female juries?
What about rich white corporate executive men? Only allow rich white corporate men as jurors, because they understand the plight of corporate malfeasance in the executive suite?
1
Doug Evans, who apparently has some sort of bloodlust has said previously that if he lost this case that he would try Curtis Flowers for the seventh time. Given that a Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, made a declaration that Flowers was guilty shouldn't Flowers be given a mistrial? It seems wholly inappropriate for Thomas to make a statement like that.
23
Perhaps even worse is the brazenness of the discrimination. In just a few extra minutes, the prosecutor could have asked about white potential jurors relationships to the store, for example.
2
Justice Thomas says Mr. Flowers is plainly guilty. That is false. The evidence is non-existent. Anyone interested in the facts of the case (and Thomas clearly isn’t such a person) should listen to the podcast “In the Dark”, season 2. Curtis Flowers is NOT GUILTY and should be released.
6
SIX TRIALS. One has to ask, at what point do the rights of the accused (and the interests of society as a whole) prohibit a prosecutor like Mr. Evans from trying a defendant like Mr. Flowers yet again?
If this were happening in another country, human rights watchers here and elsewhere would be outraged (as I hope we are) that this situation is perpetuated. Mr. Evans should be: 1. supremely embarrassed; and 2. disqualified from future prosecution for his unprofessional conduct. The rules of conduct state that lawyers should avoid conduct that creates even the appearance of professional impropriety.
How can Mr. Evans undertake SIX racist death penalty trials, at taxpayer expense, and presume to undertake a seventh?
3
Clarence Thomas remains an empty robe. I don't care of they seat Mitch McConnell, but the faster this man is off the bench, the better for all. The idea that Flowers is clearly guilty or that the journalistic work done on this case is anything less than top quality is trash and Thomas should be ashamed for putting such thoughts on the record.
16
And yet Judge Roberts justified the gutting of the voting rights act by claiming discrimination and Jim Crow are things of the past.....
Go figure.....
29
''Mr. Evans questioned black prospective jurors closely, asking them an average of 29 questions each. He asked the 11 white jurors who were eventually seated an average of one question each.''
America will not fully recover from its original disease ; racism.
12
I never believed that Flowers committed this murder, as the arrest and indictment were as flawed as his multiple trials.
Prosecutors have an interest in "solving" murders that raise public fears, and therefore stimulate political effects. That is a serious flaw in our system, but one that has to be acknowledged.
Demanding that a trial be carried out according to basic standards of fairness is essential to our continued belief in the rule of law.
2
I guess that six “fair trials” are better than one! Le sigh
If the evidence is as clear as Thomas suggests, then there should be no hinderance to a ready conviction, from a fairly constructed jury.
Fair convictions are prized, the hallmark of an honorable system.
(Someone wake Thomas up.)
6
The Supreme Court should decide to free Mr. Flowers immediately. He´s been jailed literally for ages, and was trialed six or seven times without any proof of conviction.
As if it was not enough, the prosecutor broke the law several times in order to convict Mr. Flowers and was allowed to keep the case one trial after another flawed/mishandled trial.
Absurd.
3
If the evidence is as clear as Thomas suggests, then there should be no hindrance to a ready conviction, from a fairly constructed jury.
Fair convictions are prized, the hallmark of an honorable system.
(Someone wake Thomas up.)
4
One is consistently left wondering why Clarence Thomas cannot see that his title of "Justice" is a reflection of the very thing he's supposed to be dispensing. Is there a capital case where he's found for the defendant?
And as a Catholic, which he has made no secret of outside the Court, he's supposed to understand that justice is to be tempered with mercy, especially when a man's life is at stake. If serious questions exist, the defendant should be given the benefit of the doubt.
8
Clarence Thomas’ declaration that Flowers is “plainly guilty” is disturbing and biased. The case before the SCOTUS was brought on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct in re: Batson v Kentucky not on whether Flowers was innocent or guilty of the crime of murder. His defense attorneys might want to raise the issue of a premature presumption of guilt by an influential member of the legal system and the potential of influencing the jury pool that Flowers is guilty before his next trial commences.
5
Despite all the Federal Laws that make the appearance of an equitable fair system . It appears that in 2019 not too much has changed for African Americans in the Deep South as far as the judicial system is concerned .
We are indeed fortunate to have the SCOTUS as a means for checks and balance .
At least Americans can be assured of a fair hearing under these 9 justices. We may not always agree with their decisions but they are in most cases founded on established law .
Now if only we could get our Commander In Chief to refrain from making decrees based on how it will look on his Twitter feed, and instead look at the written laws of the land that the rest of us must abide by.
So, I suppose if the Court ought not take cases with significant media attention, then the Court won't be deciding cases about abortion, gay rights, the Second Amendment, or any other significant legal issue that impacts Americans. Is that right, Justice Thomas? Or, should we stop letting the media report on what happens at the Supreme Court?
3
I am not sure if the media attention on this case is because of the lack of due process or that someone other than Mr. Flowers committed the crime. Can someone help me? Is there any evidence pointing to a known individual other than Mr. Flowers?
Clarence Thomas does not belong on the Supreme Court. He clearly does not understand his role. The Court was not ruling whether or not Flowers was guilty. They were making an important ruling on racial discrimination in jury selection. Thomas should be ejected.
13
@Ralph
Anyone else wonder if Clarence Thomas is crazy?
5
So Thomas in his dissent said that "Mr. Flowers was plainly guilty."
What does the opinion of one so far removed from the criminal proceeding as to the defendant's guilt or innocence have to do with the right to a fair trial?
8
@Roger Poor thank you. I was wondering the same thing. Regardless of the evidence if his innocence or guilt, his Condtiutional rights were violated. One has nothing to do with the other.
4
If Thomas recognized that defendants have constitutional rights, he might not make so many plainly idiotic votes.
2
In the Flowers v. Mississippi, the court did not rule the "prosecutor violated the Constitution by excluding back jurors." It found the trail court at Flower's sixth trail committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent."
The state struck Wright because she knew several defense witnesses and had worked at Wal-Mart with Flowers’ father. But, the Supreme Court noted three white prospective jurors also knew many individuals involved in the case, and the State asked them no individual questions about their connections to witnesses. White prospective jurors also had relationships with members of Flowers’ family, but the State did not ask them follow-up questions in order to explore the depth of those relationships. “
The court concluded: "All that we need to decide, and all that we do decide, is that all of the relevant facts and circumstances taken together establish that the trial court at Flowers’ sixth trial committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. In reaching that conclusion, we break no new legal ground."
2
So how exactly does Clarence Thomas knows Mr. Flowers is ‘guilty’ - and deserves the death penalty? Does he know something the other previous trials did not? It looks to me that he is retrying the case, and not the law regarding jury selection.
2
In Goldsby v. Harpole (1957), Judge Richard T. Rives of Alabama wrote the order overturning the case of an African American man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in a Mississippi county; no African American within memory had served on a jury there, despite the population being 57 percent black.
History is forgotten and repeats itself.
3
The Mississippi prosecutor in this case is a dyed in the wool racist. That has no place in our jurisprudence and it is good that SCOTUS overturned that ruling.
If they try to convict again, and a fair jury is empaneled, he might be found guilty. At least then it will be on facts and not on race.
The jury system is only going to work once A.I. Is fully implemented. People are so confused as to what they are anymore today that they’re totally incapable of objectively deciding anything, most of all another’s innocence or guilt.
A literal version of Rawl's 'veil of ignorance' should be used in jury selection. There is much about a potential juror that is, or ought be, irrelevant to selection.
Then again, I suppose it all depends on the case at hand. Difficult.
It´s unbeliavable that after six trial and no conviction, Mr. Flowers will be still held in jail.
That´s a life sentence for someone who in not convicted.
So you are guilty until you prove you´re innocent? I Thought it was the opposite
305
@rbier Looks like he's going to be tried a 7th time. I feel for Flowers and wonder how the prosecutor has held on to this job.
14
@rbier, read Solitary by Albert Woodfox for more on the so-called justice system.
7
@rbier The prosecutor should be tried - if s/he is dead confiscate his estate and give to the accused/ close family.
6
In response to those who are commenting that Flowers got off on a technicality, you are wrong on multiple counts. Firstly, Batson vs. Kentucky is the law of the land and settled law. The court ruled that prosecutors may not exclude black jurors no more than schools may exclude black students. This is not a technicality. Secondly, the state of Mississippi is free to prosecute Flowers for a seventh time as long as they do not strike all the black jurors because of their race. Lastly, listen to the podcast In the Dark Season 2 and you will conclude as many others have that Flowers is innocent. What will disturb you is how flippantly two of our so called Justices were willing to send an innocent man to his death.
10
@themodprofessor:"The court ruled that prosecutors may not exclude black jurors no more than schools may exclude black students"
And yet NYC public schools remain racially segregated.
Where is the uproar? There isn't. Where is the massive integration plan? There isn't. Oh well.
Now back to hammering on those folks in flyover country.
@Jp
So because you think NYC public schools remain segregated you think it proper for Mississippi to exclude blacks from juries and to execute innocent people?
@themodprofessor:You're the one who drew the analogy with segregated schools.
And NYC public schools are racially segregated:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/nyregion/school-segregation-new-york.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/choosing-a-school-for-my-daughter-in-a-segregated-city.html
Any protests?
Now back to hammering on those folks in flyover country.
As a Mississippian I am grateful for Judge Kavanaugh's thoughtful decision. I always thought Judge Kavanaugh would turn out to be a more thoughtful and perhaps surprisingly balanced judge than many had expected. I pray that the Defendant has a completely fair trial going forward should Evans decide to try once again, and that Evans carefully consider his decision before proceeding.
8
Not to condone Flowers actions, how fair would it have been, had Flowers been put to death notwithstanding the six trials?
Albeit a technical issue prevailed in that the crux of this matter pertained to the technical, peremptory challenges by the prosecutor.
Had the jury selection by the prosecutor been equivalent for all of the jurors, there could and would have been a different result.
The prosecutor's personal bigotry, correctly changed the outcome of the trial, despite the deaths of the others that took place.
@Quandry
News flash. Flowers is innocent. Listen to Season 2 of In the Dark as many others have suggested here. You will be seriously disturbed at how two of our so called esteemed Jurists were willing to send an innocent man to his death.
Wow, one of Thomas's reasons was that he was "plainly guilty"? So, if a supreme court justice has an opinion of the defendant's guilt, due process need not be followed?
129
It is time for Evans to step down as a prosecutor.
He could become Governor by a landslide.
16
Thanks very much to readers recommending the In the Dark podcasts, previously unknown to me. And here is an explanation of why Flowers can be retried repeatedly for the same crime: he was never acquitted.
See: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/05/01/how-can-someone-be-tried-six-times-for-the-same-crime
45
@Norburt
One of the reasons for the speedy trial requirement, if I remember correctly, was that witnesses might disappear. Wondering how many witnesses there were in the first place and if any of the those witnesses from the first trial over 23 years ago are still alive. How do they get to serially try someone? Do they declare the reversed cases a mistrial? Whatever legal concoction they are using to make this man stare down the barrel of a seventh trial surly needs to be examined.
2
Fascinated by all the comments on this post about racism in Mississippi. Please remember, the Central Park Five happened in a tony part of NYC, not the backwoods South.
314
@John Jabo
Well said, John! Unfortunately people like simplistic, bumpersticker "realities." Nuance, complexity, and look-in-the-mirror responsibility takes far too much effort for most folks.
12
@John Jabo - A lot of racism persists all over this country but it is more virulent, prevalent and ingrained in the south; before, during and after the Civil War.
27
@John Jabo Minor variation on the "You're another!" fallacy. The Central Park Five outrage doesn't make Mississippi's racial jury selection discrimination the slightest bit more fair or legitimate.
30
Please remind me again. Why is Clarence Thomas a Supreme Court Justice?
66
@gailweis
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden refused to call two witnesses who reportedly would have supported Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas.
5
My thoughts exactly.
1
A friend of my mother was a paralegal at Monsanto when Thomas was a lawyer there. She said all the sexual harassment stories were true.
Thomas is where he is only because of Jack Danforth who got him every job he ever had, from deputy attorney general in Danforth’s office, to Monsanto, to the EEOC ( how’s that for irony) to the federal court of appeals, to the Supreme Court. Otherwise he is a mediocre mid level lawyer.
3
The fundamental question is, how shall perjury be dealt with when a nominee for a court lies in testimony before the Senate?
Should Mr. Justice Thomas be impeached and convicted? And what should be done about cases in which his vote decided the outcome? Must they be reheard since, had he not lied during his hearing, he would not have been confirmed?
10
Every time I hear Clarence Thomas state his vile opinions I think:
"Joe Biden let that guy off the hook." We are still, 30 years later, living with Biden's incompetence. And now he wants my vote! I don't thinks so, Uncle Joe.
51
Clarence Thomas, by his Supreme Court decisions, has done more harm to black people than any other black man in the history of the United States.
63
Now I know why Thomas is so quiet on the court.
He has nothing important to say.
43
@Mike B
I have to say that he has said that he chooses not to ask questions because he feels it is rude. Attorneys get very limited time in which to make their arguments, and they generally prepare these down to the second, reserving time for questions, response, etc. SO, Justice Thomas does have a point. The Justices as a whole have been increasingly vocal as the years have passed - sometimes starting questions before attorneys have finished putting their names in the record, etc.!
There have been any number of attorneys who have "argued" their cases without ever getting to make their arguments.
I am NO fan of Clarence Thomas, whom I consider to be a reactionary anti-intellectual who has been provided a podium from which to attack those who helped him to achieve his goals. The galling ingratitude he expresses, claiming a race exemption from thanks and success that is wholly personal to him, sounds grotesque -- like spiteful claims of superiority and condescension. The worst is that he chooses to use his position on the court to censure and condemn anyone who could receive such help in the future.
1
Clarence Thomas dissented. why am I not surprised?
21
Read Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson ( of the Equal Justice Initiative) to see whether this was a one of a kind case.
10
A shame Doug Evans wasn’t involved in the selection process for Clarence Thomas.
37
Good grief people please come to the Baltimore City Circuit Court where every criminal defendant and every civil plaintiff tries to strike as many white/Asian jurors as possible . We have heard every reason in the book. When with the lefties realize that everybody is "racist." The most "racist" people are often the ones screaming race on everything.
15
Is it just me, or does Thomas seem to hate blacks as much as Scalia did?
He was grasping at anything he could think of to justify the prosecutor's discrimination. He even went so far as to state that the defendant was guilty so it didn't matter if he got a fair trial! What a piece of work.
55
@Gene. I agree. Thomas also seems concerned about the media. Perhaps he is listening to his wife and Trump and play the "fake media" card.
4
@Gene
It isn't just you.
I often wonder exactly what Thomas sees when he looks in the mirror.
2
Justice Thomas is a disgrace.
59
Justice Thomas may be the worst justice elevated to the Supreme Court in the last 119 years. The evidence regarding selection of jurors her showed that the primary purpose of the prosecutors questions was to create an excuse to keep all Black people off the jury. there can be no fair trial by a jury of your peers when the defendant is black and there are no black jurors. Besides it all, these cases were tried and retried in Mississippi, a state that is notorious for its racism even to this day. No trial of a black man in Mississippi can be fair without a reasonable number of black jurors. 36.33% of the people in Mississippi are black and over 1/3 of jurors should also be black if there is to be fairness. Mississippi has the second largest percentage of black people in the United States, second only to Washington D.C. with 60%. http://www.censusscope.org/us/rank_race_blackafricanamerican.html
24
@Joel Friedlander:"over 1/3 of jurors should also be black if there is to be fairness. "
Why apply this on a state level? What about a county level? A city level?
In the US only 13% of the population is African-American. Thirteen percent of the jurists should be African-American across the board.
Bernie from Vermont are you listening? You need to bring in some jurists from Mississippi.
Why is this public prosecutor still allowed to practice law?
Moreover, two of the justices think that this is all okay and believe the case should not be reversed.
A third justice, concurring, state, "I would have no trouble affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which conscientiously applied the legal standards applicable in less unusual cases. But viewing the totality of the circumstances present here, I agree with the Court that petitioner's capital conviction cannot stand."
I guess if the prosecutor had excluded only 40 of the 44 African Americans it would have been good enough for Alito.
12
This is good news, though that Gorsuch joined Thomas is disturbing.
Now can we please move forward and hold that it's unconstitutional to exclude death penalty opponents from serving on juries in death penalty cases? It's an absurd practice, and like exclusion by race, eliminates the possibility of a "jury of one's peers".
5
The Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, Rule 1.2 states, “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and IMPARTIALITY* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” I am stunned that Justice Thomas would write that the defendant is “clearly guilty.” How does the defense attorney successfully defend his client when anyone on the jury who pays any attention would know that a Supreme Court Justice called him guilty?
The question of the defendant’s guilt was not before this court. It was strictly a question as to whether he received a fair trial. By remarking on the guilt of the defendant, he infers that the question of whether this man received a fair trial is irrelevant. It is not.
These are the conservatives, my friends. These are the ones that hug the American Flag and extol the virtues of Law and Justice. And don’t be fooled. Just because 4 of the 5 conservative justices happened to land on the correct side of the law this time, have no doubt that they will gladly rule to remove protections guaranteed by the Constitution and decades of precedent. They already have and they will again.
And what remedy is there to a Supreme Court that rules against the principles of the Constitution and precedent?
12
It seems to me this trial should have been moved to a more neutral venue given the many times it came before judicial revue so many times. The fact that the same jurisdiction put this man before a jury pool from the same small area over and over again and allowed the same prosecutor to oversee the retrials smells to high heaven of conspiracy on the part of the prosecution. But I am no lawyer so I remain open for rebuttal.
10
Thomas and Gorsuch "dissent" on a decision about a case of obvious racial bias and an appalling travesty of justice?
What "credits" to the Court!
Thomas -- who benefited from affirmative action in being admitted to Yale Law School and whined about what he claimed was racially biased treatment by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- has no problem with racism when it affects others!
That's "different"! As it always is with character alike Thomas!
Unfit for the Court, as his conformation hearings showed, and displaying his manifest unfitness for being a Justice on a daily basis.
17
Any committee or agency of government investigating Kavanagh for possible perjury at his confirmation hearing or is that simply history?
Anyone bothered to talk with Dr. Ford following the Democratic control of the House?
1
Can we finally all conclude that Mississippi is a totally corrupt state and its agents who prosecute are worse?
Six trials? A history of serious misconduct on the part of the prosecutor? Jury selection procedures so wrong that they merit - honestly - a Supreme Court judgment? This is yet another state that sane and thoughtful people should flee immediately.
7
@Berkeley Bee It is misguided to impugn an entire state based on the acts of a single prosecutor. I guarantee you will find prosecutorial misconduct in all fifty states. Be glad the SCOTUS corrected this error and gave meaning to Batson without giving in to the urge to grossly overgeneralize based on a single example.
2
"Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. He said that Mr. Flowers was plainly guilty..." That wasn't the question before the court, improper jury selection was.
33
I wonder if the all black juries of the Bronx, which are renowned for rendering tremendous verdicts for the plaintiff, are also unconstitutional. Was the nearly all black jury that exonerated OJ Simpson also unconstitutional? Is it only unconstitutional when a racially homogenous jury happens to be white? I suppose this is a double standard that the Supreme Court will have to unravel.
8
@Joshua Folds
White people are excluded from juries in the Bronx - it's just that the vast majority of the Bronx population is black or Hispanic.
1
@Al
Meant "not excluded . . ."
@Al...The vast majority of the population in Harrison County Mississippi and throughout Mississippi is Caucasian. Only 20% is African American. If I--a white man--have to stand trial for murdering three black people in Bronx County with mainly black and , will it be required of the prosecution to seek out other whites from the Bronx in order to ensure fairness for me as a Caucasian? Do you believe a black jury would be more or less inclined to convict a white man of murdering black victims? Why doesn't the standard apply equally?
"He said that Mr. Flowers was plainly guilty and that"
Excuse me, he said what? Absolutely unbelievable, inconceivable, that a Supreme Court justice would utter such a thing, ever.
Clarence Thomas is not fit to serve as a judge in any court.
29
Just read Justice Thomas' dissent, which takes all assertions of the prosecutors as fact, throws them up as trees, but still can't obscure the forest of Mississippi finding all but a handful of black potential jurors unfit for duty.
4
A great decision, though painful to read that Justice Thomas takes comfort in hope Mr. Flowers will be tried and convicted yet again. Thomas is yet again a disgrace to his predecessor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who rightly wrote about peremptory challenges in Batson v. Kentucky that "The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process. That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely." He was right then as now. And Justice Thomas's acrobatic efforts to justify the bogus pretexts created by the DA only support Marshall's point.
8
You know Curtis Flowers did it though, right? People always seem to lose sight of that. He killed innocent people and the evidence is overwhelming.
4
@Mark
If he was truly guilty, then the prosecutor should have trusted the system rather than trying to game it. Our constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. It was the state that cruelly failed the victim and re-victimized the family. See OJ Simpson/Nicole Brown Simpson/Ron Goldman. A corrupt system cannot deliver justice by definition.
2
@Mark. A jury of peers....just a reminder that the jury should be a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. That was what this was all about. Every citizen is entitled to that.
2
@Mark No, the evidence is not overwhelming. Doug Evans withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense. Evans also used a man who has been convicted of crimes several times as his key witness. Evans has used the same man as an informant in multiple trials. As a reward for his testimony this man was let out of jail before completing his sentence and then proceeded to commit other serious crimes. There's a lot that stinks about this case.
Jury nullification is inherently (reverse) discriminatory in that black jurors ignore the facts in the case and acquit because they feel the law itself is racially unjust. That was at the center of the OJ Simpson case. What the Supreme Court is saying in essence is that white jurors are incapable of rendering a fair verdict against a black defendant and, worse, that the known phenomenon of jury nullification in which a black defendant is acquitted by black jurors by virtue of his or her race is perfectly defensible.
5
Not true. The jurors responded to the obvious attempts by Mark Furman and others to frame a guilty man. If the prosecution/law enforcement is unwilling to provide the truth, then a reasonable person cannot believe anything they say. Hence OJ was acquitted. It was the prosecution that delivered injustice, not the jury.
3
Yet another reminder that prosecutors in this country have an extraordinary amount of power and very little (almost none, in fact) accountability. It's a perfect recipe for the abuse of power, to say nothing of corruption. Where are the laws defining prosecutorial misconduct as a crime, punishable by jail time? Oh wait, legislatures, which are made up disproportionately of lawyers, want to protect their own. Silly me.
3
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if you're on the Supreme Court there is certainly no doubt the justices are. But sometimes Thomas' opinions are ridiculous, and this is one of those times. He cares little for law and true justice.
6
Clarence Thomas has an antecedent in the fictional character of Sgt. Vernon Waters, brilliantly portrayed by Adolph Caesar in the film "A Soldier's Story" (1984).
1
Prosecutors represent the people, regardless of race. If the jury pool is biased, he should seek a change of venues. It really looks like this prosecutor is a bigot who does not expect fair rulings due to race.
5
So we see the South is still the South. That’s why Roy Moore still thinks he has a good chance of winning the Alabama senate race. And 49 percent of the Alabama electorate voted for him. Alabama, Mississippi, what’s the difference?
6
How does one get a fair re-trial when a member of the land's highest court says "He is plainly guilty" ?
Oh, and is a justice AND may have this case before him again?
10
Poor, sad Clarence Thomas.
Thirty years on the Supreme Court and he still doesn't understand, or pretends not to understand, that procedural fairness is all we have. Likely motivated by his contempt for the liberals who worked in 1991 to keep him off the Court, and perhaps by other considerations, he would consign a human being to death on manipulated procedures that all but one of his colleagues believe make a mockery of due process and equal protection.
"Somewhere in the universe, there must be something better than man." -- "Planet of the Apes" (1968)
6
Sometimes the purpose of a free press - and perhaps its highest calling - is to seek justice for those who have been ignored, neglected, or to whom a disservice has been committed by those in authority. When that occurs, it is perfectly appropriate and, in fact, necessary that our courts take notice and revisit cases in these instances. This is why the First Amendment is so important.
I'm surprised Clarence Thomas doesn't understand that, but of course he does tend to side with the powerful over those without power. In doing so so often and consistently, he causes one to question what useful role in the pursuit of justice he actually serves. More than any other SC Justice, he seems to revel more in obstructing justice than he does in serving it.
19
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion illustrates the problem in trying to fit a jurist into an ideological box, such as "liberal" or "conservative". These categories might be useful in pigeon-holing a politician, but I suggest that they have a totally different meaning when applied to a judge. As an example, Justice Scalia was often labeled a conservative, but his radical departure from precedent in favor of a highly conservative political outcome was in no way the work of a conservative judge. Justice Kavanaugh has been attacked as being conservative. I suggest that a truly conservative judge will tend to follow precedent, including those decisions that appear favorable to those of the public who consider themselves liberal. I would not be at all surprised if he ruled in favor of sustaining Roe v. Wade in its entirety.
9
@D. E. Harris Read the American Legion decision. He voted with the majority that crosses aren't religious symbols?
Jury selection even in civil cases is often based on assumptions about people’s beliefs based on their race. Just like polling by politicians and opinions by newspaper columnists.
2
It’s 2019 and Mississippi is still burning.
371
@Ghana-man
It's 2019 and the United States is burning.
36
@Ghana-man Along with all of the South, including TX, NM, AZ, and CA.
8
I wonder if Bret is out to legitimize himself, i.e. swim out from under the stigma with an assist from Roberts who does not want to be the captain of a sinking ship.
All not blind saw what Kavanaugh did as a kid after he was trained by parochial education in DC.
Meanwhile, sadly, the other most sullied member of the court, Clarence Thomas, doubles down on his TomTom...he has turned his back on himself and his people.
This is much watch Supreme Court.
Might Kavanaugh redeem himself for having committed mortal sins that he knows too well but we can only strongly suspect?
I, who would have hung him, think yes, because
It's never too late to do the right thing, which, at the moment, is to be first, a man, a human, rely on common sense...all of which argue at this point in history to go Left.
BK, I'm praying for you to keep surprising us pleasantly.
Don't let that hearing define you.
6
@frankly 32 Anyone familiar with Kavanugh's judicial record should not be surprised. Also, did you read the article? Kavanaugh published articles decrying racism in jury selection during law school. He's probably the most centrist justice on the bench now. All of the leftist hand-wringing over his appointment could have been very self-defeating. Trump's alternative to Kavanaugh choice would almost certainly have been farther right.
1
Clarence Thomas: it doesn't matter if you get a fair trial if you're guilty.
We've had many schools of legal thoughts represented on the Court but I think Thomas must be the first adherent to the "Alice In Wonderland" school: "Sentence first-verdict afterward."
17
The whole 'striking' of potential jurors seems very wrong, at its core. No matter how you slice it, lawyers have and always will (barring any formal changes in process) try and skew the makeup of the jury in their favor. How is it any worse to exclude black jurors (because you think they may be more likely to 'side' with a black defendant) than it is to exclude liberals in cases against big pharma/big banks/agro-chemical companies? Or to exclude female jurors in a case where a man was accused of sexual harassment against a female colleague?
Clarence Thomas shows his true colors—no pun intended.
I suppose that Neil Gorsuch, “strict constructionist” that he and the Heritage Society demand from the bench, now casts doubt upon Batson. I suppose the Constitution means to the Right what it desires.
And I cannot understand Brett Kavanaugh going against Donald Trump here. Maybe it’s a peace laurel tossed out to Lady Justice. Sorry, I cannot credit him for any sense of fairness and justice. Even though the Mississippi prosecutor left a clear, easy-to-follow trail of jury exclusion, this should have been a slam-dunk.
1
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Trump has no idea as to what a judge will do - - he goes along with the recommendations of the Federalist Society as relayed by the White House Counsel. The Federalist Society generally recommends nominees who are "conservative" in the judicial sense, which is unrelated to the term as used to describe a political ideology. It remains to be seen how Kavanaugh will decide future cases - - my guess is that he will pretty much follow relevant precedent. Incidentally, I happen to be rather liberal in my ideology, but as a retired lawyer, I am comfortable with a judge who is judicially conservative.
How is the Federalist Society representative of American culture and why do they get to choose our judges?
3
Regarding Kavanaugh, is it too soon to say "even a broken clock is right twice a day"?
5
Lawyers ... must provide a nondiscriminatory explanation.
... Those reasons, the Supreme Court has said, do not have to be “persuasive, or even plausible.”
I think this says it perfectly. It is a license to lie. That 2 justices saw fit to accept the pathetically thinly veiled justifications for excluding black jurors is shameful.
4
I think a lot of prosecutors will simply ask prospective black jurors if they believe the American criminal justice system is biased against black people. If they answer yes, then even though that is objectively true, the prosecutor will have an excuse for excluding them.
2
Kavanaugh’s opinion reads like a nice law review article but it does underscore an important trend in Batson law.
Earlier Batson cases stressed the trial court’s “credibility determination” in assessing whether the prosecutor’s challenges were motivated by bigotry or a discriminatory purpose. Since a prosecutor will seldom admit to such an intent and since *any* idiocyncratic excuse for peremptory challenge is legally acceptable, the trial court was expected to exercise some mysterious telepathic power in determining what truly lay hidden in the prosecutor’s heart.
The absurdity of this jurisprudence has been widely noted. It meant that a prosecutor could “justify” kicking off a black juror by saying he didn’t like his body language. Typically trial judges have accepted these justifications at face value. The California Supreme Court — quite hostile to Batson’s rule — has stated that the trial court’s intent determination is all but final.
Later U.S. Supreme Court cases have moved toward a more objective standard which assesses whether the prosecutor's stated reasons for kicking the juror hold water in light of all the known facts of the case. This case confirms that trend.
1
Did Thomas just say I think the guy is guilty so he's not entitled to a fair trial???
25
Why am I not surprised to here the State was The South? Stereotypical, yes...but true in this case. Disbar the lawyer.
Given te long-standing rule against racism in jury selection, what surprises me is that Thomas and Gorsuch dissented. How low can they go.
Thomas' idiotic comment about the defendant being guilty anyway reminds me of a remark that I will never forget: Geoge Bush Sr. stated, when appointing Thomas to the bench, that he was absolutely the best candidate in the country for the Supreme Court seat.
Thomas still does not undestand the role of an appellate court: even if we KNOW a defendant is guilty, the legal system of rules and precedents needs to be rigidly affirmed by the Supreme Court.
3
"In a passage in which Justice Thomas spoke only for himself, he wrote that he had profound doubts about whether the Batson decision had been correctly decided in the first place." Thomas needs to get off the bench.
10
Mr. Kavanaugh has shown a gut with sound rationale and judgement in contrast to Mr. Thomas with no clear meaning of what he was saying. Mr. Thomas does not know where he is coming from and why he became the supreme court justice. he rarely spoke or ask questions to any legal arguments. he hardly wrote any opinion since he became the justice. only God knows what he is doing there occupying a chair for the rest of his life.
5
There are US Laws, and there are the ugly "Good Old Boy" Laws that still sometimes prevail in the South.
Wait. Kavanaugh is not a racist? This can't be right.
4
@Michael
Why can't that be right?
Why did the judge allow an all-white jury?
Why did the defense?
To Kill a Mockingbird, 2019.
3
Perhaps requiring exclusion of white people from juries for white defendants would start to bring Mississippi into the 20th century.
Then they can start on the 21st . . . .
3
Clarence Thomas must hold the record for the longest, grudge ever.
12
It is perplexing to me that as a Black man that Clarence Thomas would support racism in the justice system.
9
Why is a prosecutor who has been found guilty of misconduct so many times allowed to retry the defendant against whom his misconduct was repeatedly directed?
900
@Jamie Stecher
I'll venture an answer to that question: Mississippi?
68
Listen to the podcast. It’s riveting
11
Why do the people in his jurisdiction keep electing him? Sad indeed.
22
And still the prosecutor, Doug Evans, will go unpunished.
310
@Rob O’
We never prosecute government employees for misfeasance. That's why government is such a good job. You're fine as long as you don't rob, murder, or rape someone.
4
Um, hello? This is Mississippi we are talking about. Sorry Mississippians, but is anyone surprised by this?
2
Seriously, what is Clarence Thomas's problem? It seems even Gorsuch and Alito felt he went too far this time around.
6
Justice Kavanaugh! Right on brah. Those kegstands clearly did not eliminate all the vestiges of your thoughtfull reason. There is hope.
8
If one looks at Mississippi of 2019 one sees MAGA.
6
Prospective jurors should be asked only three questions.
1. Do you know the defendant?
2. Do you know victim or anyone related to the victim?
3. Can you render an objective verdict without prejudice?
Three yeses and your accepted.
3
I believe Anita Hill.
78
@Hal
I did from the beginning.
9
@Hal
I choose to say it this way: I STILL believe Anita Hill.
3
“Any appearance that this court gives closer scrutiny to cases with significant media attention will only exacerbate these problems and undermine the fairness of criminal trials.”
Bull.
This court need cameras in its own courtroom.
4
How the same prosecutor who had been overturned on appeal FOUR TIMES (for the same reason three of those times) could possibly have been permitted to lead the prosecution the fifth and sixth times is literally beyond comprehension. This man is responsible for several millions of wasted public money for his repeated and blatant violations of the law. Incredible.
22
Thomas' dissent is much more than the quotes lines here.
He goes on great length to explain what happened in the pervious 4 trials, and why those Black jurors were dismissed.
So while my liberal friends play sport in Thomas-bashing, I would suggest reading it. It's in plain English, and though you may disagree, it will give you pause.
And will certainly change your view on Thomas' position in this case.
@profwilliams It was pointed out that the reasons given for dismissing some of the black jurors were false (that they had previous dealings with the store), and the questions asked that supposedly got them recused were not asked of the white jurors.
Substitute female for black and let's go back and tally over time, for all prosecutors.
Just to gain perspective on prejudice towards women in the jury system.
Prejudice of any and all kinds must be eliminated to Make America as Great as its full potential as envisioned by our founders.
Start there, please.
1
@Cliff Cowles
Your asking that we start with women, suspending the work at hand with blacks, is a testimony to your hierarchical sense of justice - deal with the women's issues first as somehow that collective is more important than blacks. This when women, broadly, are not disproportionately engaged in the criminal justice system.
and this has been happening for many, many decades... and keeps happening. Why the Supreme Court just found out now...? They probably are finding out that they have a conscience... Still depressing
2
I didn't even have to read the article to know where Thomas would come down on this. Some jurist! I doubt that there is any race-related issue where he would not come down on the opposite side of the person of color. Does he really believe there is no such thing as racism in this country? I'm sure he has many personal stories to attest that it exists. How sad and miserable he must be to feel the need to deny such a fundamental truth.
7
ITS ALIVE DR FRANKENSTEIN Clarence Thomas lives and has spoken after years on the bench. Glory Hallaluyah. I prefer him to be reticent.
2
How does Clarence Thomas reach a conclusion, clearly the role of the jury, about a defendant's guilt or innocence?
8
Too bad Democrats and liberals weren’t fired up about Supreme Court seats in 2016. A few more votes in a couple of states.
Can’t complain now. This what “no difference” looks like.
McConnell purposely denied Obama’s picks in the hopes Trump would win.
Democratic voters got conned by Russian media sites, email controversy and any number of theories.
In 2020, vote for democratic nominee. Don’t stay home, pout or vote for Jill Stein.
7
I remember the encomiums for the late George Bush and what a fine, gentle soul he was. However, the cynical and manipulative replacement of a giant like Thurgood Marshall with the whiny, vengeful Clarence Thomas speaks far more about his character and legacy than just about any other action of his public life.
33
This must be a record for repeat trials. I would have thought we had long ago reached the threshold for dismissing the charges and preventing any further trials of this individual.
The trials themselves could also be regarded as constituting "cruel and unusual" punishment.
6
I think Thomas' opinions are more interesting from a social science and psychology perspective than a legal or jurisprudential one. I'm not African American, but it seems incredibly odd to me that the lone black justice on the Supreme Court seems to be less interested in racial discrimination and enforcing protections under the 14th amendment than any other justice, conservative or liberal. I can at least understand his take on affirmative action, but his opinions in some of these cases, especially recent cases involving potential racial discrimination under the Voting Rights Act and Sixth Amendment (right to a fair trial) strike me as bizarre. Especially since he has gone out of his way to write detailed dissent/concurrences, portions of which no other justice has joined, asserting that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in those areas should essentially be overturned. It makes no sense to me.
It also strikes me as extremely bad form to (1) state that a party is "clearly guilty" when the courts have invalidated every single one of his convictions and the case concerned a procedural issue rather than a substantive one, and (2) celebrate the fact that any person--guilty or not--should be tried SEVEN separate times for the same crime. That seems incredibly irresponsible from a purportedly neutral arbiter of law and fact.
40
Am I alone in my dismay that (in-)justice Thomas dissented in part due to believing that Flowers was "plainly guilty"? This case is not about the defendant's apparent guilt or innocence. Thomas seems to think that as long as a defendant appears (to him, at least) to be guilty, the prosecution is free to do whatever it wants. What a flabbergasting display of disregard for the rights of the accused, let alone the concept of presumptive innocence. If only Thomas were to find himself on trial.
66
@ARNP When he was being judged in his confirmation hearing, he was confronted by a thoroughly credible witness (Anita Hill) but he enjoyed the outrageous suppression (by Joe Biden) of the testimony of two additional credible witnesses who would have corroborated Professor Hill. And all he could do was dismiss the entire proceeding out of hand as if he, the credibly accused, were the victim.
So by his weird logic, if someone credibly says HE's guilty he is not guilty and that's all there is to it; and his victims are not entitled to due process. But if HE says someone is guilty they are guilty and that's all there is to it; and the accused is not entitled to due process.
And Gorsuch agrees with him.
1
This is an excellent report from Mr. Liptak, one of the few legal reporters who appears to be knowledgeable in the law while keeping any ideological bias to a minimum. I would like to bring up a few points of clarification that I think are helpful to nonlegal readers so that they might better understand this area of law and the vast importance of this decision. First, the reason this case is so important is that, like noted, it gives Batson teeth. Batson challenges have been notoriously weak and this decision sets a precedent for judges to view "race-neutral" reasons with a bit more skepticism than they have in the past. Second, I think it's important to distinguish Gorsuch's dissent from Thomas's. Gorsuch dissented because he believes that Batson was correctly applied by the state court in the 6th trial alone, and that current law doesn't permit misconduct in past prosecutions to affect a current one. Thomas, a judicial aberration, wants Batson overruled. Gorsuch does not deserve to be lumped in with Thomas. Third, "should the state decide to retry him" misrepresents the Court's purpose. Each Justice believed he was guilty, and he will be retried. I have not listened to the podcast mentioned, and I will, but from the evidence I have seen, it is clear Flowers is guilty. Maybe more information will change my mind. This case is not about the guilt or innocence of Curtis Flowers. It is a strong message that seven justices are sending to prosecutors nationwide. Stop being racist.
3
Well, who would expect that Judge Kavanaugh ruled with the majority in a fair decision against discrimination? That is welcoming for a conservative such as he. I do have two questions, however. The first is will the above be as wise when it relates to the blatant discrimination against a woman's right over her own personhood? The second is: When is Clarence Thomas retiring? He has outlived his usefulness if indeed he ever was useful to the Supreme Court.
5
Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
In other words, APPEALS are pointless, since no circumstances matter after a jury convicts.
This affects every American.
2
This is nice, but it hardly makes up for SCOTUS, led by Roberts, gutting the voting rights act in Shelby County v. Holder. This does nothing to convince me that Kavanaugh is not a right-wing ideologue or that the conservative justices as a whole will not make drastic rulings.
6
Another example of the Roberts court not about to bring back chains, slavery and segregation and fire and brimstone like the far left fears. There were numerous cases involving gay rights, abortion, crime etc. that went the liberals way.
They will be more conservative for sure but the main threat to our country now is not them but Trump.
Instead of the far left obsessing about how the Supreme Court is not lily liberal pure, concentrate on getting Trump out of office by not nominating an identity obsessed, social engineering, east coast liberal next time like Hillary in 2016. Somebody who is a moderate progressive in tune with what a majority of the country wants. Right now it is Biden, but it could be any of the candidates, white, black, young, old, male, female. Just don't pull a Hillary.
Only then will them able to appoint more left leaning Judges to the Court.
1
I'll give Kavanaugh, Roberts and Alito a pass on this one as long as they vote correctly on the census case.
5
Reparation for the past may or may not be practical or reasonable. But Mitch McConnell saying "none of us currently living are responsible" ignores what goes on every day today, including this Supreme Court Case, and ongoing gerrymandering to suppress the Black vote. It may not be be cause for reparation, but it isn't in the past. It's now.
5
It’s time for the idea of the “peremptory challenge” to go. It’s an explicit invitation to use illegitimate reasoning to rule out jurors. If an attorney has a legitimate reason to bar a certain juror, he or she can make an argument, and the judge will make a decision. We don’t need this extra twist.
1
This is the fourth time that Kavanaugh has sided with the liberal wing of the court. conservatives must be rethinking their previous avid support for him at this point.
3
It is an absolute farce to pretend that a 7th trial after all this time constitutes "Justice." A man serves 20 something years in prison for a crime that the state has failed to properly convict 6 times should just endlessly be tried over and over, with no penalty to the state or the DA who presided over such shoddy work? It's Kafkaesque.
At the very least, why isn't this case automatically transferred to a DA in a different county (preferably far from there), one who hasn't shown himself to be consistently questionable?
8
Listen to In The Dark podcast. It is so discouraging that this attempt at prosecution can continue, 6 attempts while Curtis Flowers rots in jail. What century are we in?
5
I hold onto good news like this like a life raft these days.
4
Second to the outrageousness of his statement that Flowers was "plainly guilty," I note also that Clarence Thomas blames the media for the court having to hear this case and the court was doing so only because it got media attention, media attention that "often titillates rather than inform." So sorry Clarence that you are inconvenienced those pesky cases loaded with racial injustice, cases that, but for the media would go unchecked. The "In The Dark" podcast does nothing but inform. The sad thing is there not enough media or public interest to bring awareness to all of the racial injustice in the legal system. I'm sure he was thrilled when Trump weighed in on the guilt of the Central Park 5.
3
I read the NYT Supreme Court / law religiously and are a very significant reason that I have a digital subscription to the NYT.
However, visiting SCOTUSblog is imperative for reading SCOTUS case details and opinions, and it is apparent that this term has been rather interesting. New "conservative justices" Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have differed considerably on a number of decisions. Furthermore, neither ideological block of the SCOTUS is solid; many decisions have not been 5-4. For example, in yesterday's cross case, liberal justices Kagan and Breyer joined conservatives in the majority, but today's case has conservative justices Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals in the majority.
Regardless of anyone's personal agreements or disagreements with any specific case, this is good news.
This illustrates 3 things:
1. We don't have a dire SCOTUS crisis and the republic is not coming to an end.
2. The SCOTUS is less partisan and ideological than Congress, thus illustrating an advantage of removing judges from having to be elected and subject to overt party partisanship.
3. The SCOTUS is giving an example to both Congress and hard-line ideologues in the electorate of how to behave like adults to accomplish things and to agree to disagree when passions arise.
Decisions like this one today and the one yesterday illustrate reasonableness and vigilance against injustice.
We should be proud at the foresight of this nation's founders and should scorn the hyperpartisan among us.
52
@VJR
I agree with you for the most part. Many justices have ruled in ways that were out of alignment with the expectations of the presidents that appointed them. Part of that has to do with nominating reasonable men with education in the law and history, though the two who voted against the majority today are not particularly reasonable, from what I have read that they wrote or said (I say the same for the deceased justice Scalia, whose opinions and speeches reeked of an inability to apply rational thought; I thought Kavanaugh was quite a reasonable person and the hysteria poured out against him was a mistake, given the prior appointment).
I take issue with this statement:
We don't have a dire SCOTUS crisis and the republic is not coming to an end.
We don't seem to have a SCOTUS, that is true, but the two statements are largely independent, so that to say the republic is not in trouble simply on the basis of the first statement regarding the court is a logical mistake. That is, a failure in reasoning.
As for the pride bit, that is an opinion that does not follow rationally from anything else you said. Worship of the nation's founders is not rational.
5
@VJR I'm not surprised that the Republican-appointed and Democrat-appointed justices will agree on occasion. That's the not problem. The problem is that in cases protecting the power of the Republican Party, all five Republican-appointed justices will vote for it, no matter precendent or the evidence. I think we'll see that in the census case.
19
@VJR Agree with much of this:
1. The Chief Justice, always aware of the Court's stature in American life and his own legacy, is clearly haunted by the unintended consequences of his decision in Consumers United and determined to mitigate its impact whenever he can.
2. Justice Kavanaugh faces a deeply personal need to repair his relationships with his family, so badly damaged by the revelations of his hearing. He will stand for a fair and just society in ways that, in the end, will profoundly disappoint his fans at the Federalist Society who thought they were getting just an entitled white male frat boy lackey.
1
Perhaps I am misinformed, but I thought a person could not be tried twice for the same crime.
89
Judith, three of his trials ended in convictions reversed on appeal and one in a mistrial.
All the the original trials were legally negated, as if they had never occurred.
38
@Judith
True, but only if they are found 'not guilty'. He was never found 'not guilty', rather he had the guilty verdicts tossed out. Then he was tried again, and again, and again...
10
@Judith That is true but in each trial he was found guilty but it was then overturned by the state's supreme court
6
Clarence Thomas says Flowers was plainly guilty. Is that not something that is decided by trial, not before the trial. Excluding black jurors from a jury is okay? Why? All white juries in Mississippi are notorious for finding Blacks guilty regardless of the evidence. A strong case cold be made that without blacks on a the jury in Mississippi trying a black man a fair verdict is dubious.
Racism is alive and well in Mississippi. How could a judge allow this? How can not the problem with excluding blacks from the jury not be self evident in Mississippi?
156
@Maxman
The Court has ruled that the Seventh Amendment is applicable to trials by jury wherein the jury is the sole finder of fact.
Per usual, Justice Thomas shows his less than sterling knowledge of the Law as he is one of the nine responsible that will decide on life or death.
And tremble in fear all 'criminals' approaching the bar before this Justice
9
@Maxman Yes, that was pretty shocking. The issue under Batson is one of process, not of ultimate guilt or innocence. In theory, appellate judges are not supposed to decide the legal issues before them on the basis of whether they think the defendant got what he deserved. Of course, they very often do but are not supposed to admit it.
8
@Maxman Clarence needs a strict freudian 7 days a week on a barcolounger followed by rolfing and LSD and perhaps even scientology may help.
7
I am stunned and by this ruling. Equal justice under law? What are the Republicans on the court thinking? This is not what the GOP/Trump confirmed judges were supposed to do. For America to become a white nationalist MAGA State, rulings like this will have to be overturned. This is a real blow to the Trump base.
38
Clarence Thomas is a Freudian mess. He still resents the liberals who accused him....
159
@Occupy Government, as well as those who pushed for the programs from which he benefited. Righteous Justice is an oxymoron which guides his rulings.
9
@Occupy Government Clarence Thomas is a total waste of the salary provided to him.
11
@Occupy Government - Where is the left's hatred for Kavanaugh now? Apparently when the left gets what it expects, there is silence otherwise, scorn is heaped upon the person who dares voice an opinion that is contrary to those who distain him.
3
It is so painful to watch Clarence Thomas occupy a seat that could be filled by a thoughtful, knowledgeable justice. Or someone who simply listens to the facts of a case before deciding how to vote. Or someone who is even conscious during hearings.
But Justice Kavanaugh is listening and applying the law. Showing and courage to be his own person in his rulings. I'm experiencing a strangle and unfamiliar sensation. Could it be hope?
173
@Char You attack Thomas, as most of my fellow liberal friends do, without much specifics. Did you read his dissent in this case? Or is this your knee-jerk response to him?
If you read it, what do you disagree with?
You also make little sense saying he doesn't listen to case just because you don't agree with his reasoning. Or are you falling into the "He doesn't talk during Oral Arguments" trap? You do know why he doesn't talk, right?
1
@Char Don't hope. He joined the majority in the American Legion case to find that a Christian cross isn't a religious symbol. He is one of them.
5
The decision, or rather the facts underlying the decision, highlight just another aspect of how racism dominates American life. While we need to focus on the actions of the Prosecutor in the case, and the need to prevent unfair verdicts based upon the racial configuration of juries, the real horror is that White juries render tainted verdicts for Black defendants. I suspect that the reverse is also the case. Such bias should not exist in America today but it clearly does. Racism impacts all aspects of life. We need to work much harder to eliminate the scourge. Politicians, church leaders, teachers and everyone else who guides and teaches us all need to focus on this massive problem.
23
@Disillusioned
It is hugely important to remember that the juries were presented with very, very skewed evidence including a convicted murderer's testimony that he heard Mr. Flowers talking about his "role" in the Tardy murders. This testimony was later recanted entirely. The juries in every instance were given significantly misleading information, in some cases by people who have admitted to perjuring themselves. Other suspects were never seriously considered. The juries who heard the evidence I believe did their best. One should not assume that a person's skin color (black or white) would automatically make them more or less likely to convict a person of their own race.
1
Might not make a difference, but what a about a change of venue to somewhere else in that state? Maybe that has been tried, but that process, too, has been hijacked...
5
So, stolen seat and harassment seat dissented. What a surprise.
48
Justice Kavanaugh is turning out to be the bright and thoughtful justice most Americans expected him to be.
17
@Brewster Millions Read some of the other decisions so far. I beg to differ.
2
Gorsuch is an illegit appointment. It needs to be repeated until he resigns.
113
@Daniel Mozes
If Dems attain control of 67 seats in the Senate, Gorsuch could be impeached and removed as the fruit of an unprecedented abuse of power by Mitch McConnell in 2016.
5
@Daniel Mozes I call Gorsuch the IN-Justice. It works on so many levels.
3
The Senate is busy confirming Judges, such as Matthew Kacsmaryk, who are ready to ignore any SCOTUS anti-discrimination decisions based on nothing more than their own bigoted beliefs.
We are in for rough times.
Will the Supreme Court be up to the task?
25
@ Martin You have all but answered your own question, since this group of judges is the crop from which future justices will likely be "culled." The days of going outside the court systems to law schools, practitioners, etc. to look for Supreme Court Justices seems to be dead and gone forever.
When we get a cadre that decides that we should be a "Christian" nation, instead of one founded on religious freedom, what will happen? We edge closer and closer to impacting our individual liberties every day.
2
@Martin
No.
It is not the easiest of jobs, being a D.A.
On the one hand, you believe in the guilt of a party and want a fair trial. Yes, the D.A. should get a fair trial too.
If you think all jurors are alike, you are more than slightly incorrect. Stung by hung juries on cases that should be easy to prove, young D.A.'s might soon see a pattern, some jurors will never convict a guilty party and the race of the defendant is all that matters.
Some prospective jurors will be honest, they will tell you that up front, they will not carry out their duties, they will not convict a person of color.
The danger is the ones who feel that way and will NOT tell you.
Jury selection is part science, part art and I have seen nearly a thousand selections.
Both attorneys know they can't exclude anyone just based on race or even gender.
If I was to ask what you thought of the police or justice system, I no doubt would get different results from blacks/whites or Asians.
There is more distrust or even hatred of the system by some.
The D.A. knows which group that is, we all do, the media reports it, they do too.
So, getting that info out might take a lot more questions than one.
When you have a slam dunk case hung and the ones who hung it up are all part of one group, you are stuck with trying to get a fair jury and trying to not be accused of a bias.
For me, the jury process is outdated, it requires civic responsibility and we have none.
4
@WR
Are you saying this was a slam dunk case?
Because based on the fact that this is now the 6th trial decision overturned or no decision reached on a 23 years old case it leads me to consider that this case may very well be a stretch even in Mississippi.
2
The man deserves a fair trial. It isn’t a coincidence that all overturned verdicts of innocence included trials with jurors of his peers. The prosecutor in this case has a notorious history of convictions with all white juries, striking all African American jurors from the selection process. His rate of African American selection was alarmingly low to non-existent. This has been documented and hence its reason before the Supreme Court.
2
@WR You plainly, explicitly, and unequivocally reveal your own clear bias in your comment. Kind of surprising that an attorney (or anyone in the justice system) would do such a thing (if you are an attorney, as I am).
You are basically part of the problem, with your clear assumptions and presumptions about certain groups and how you clearly apply them to individuals based on their immutable characteristics. You should check yourself. You should be more careful.
1
Thomas " Flowers is clearly guilty." What?
125
@John Nelson
Clearly, everyone is guilty.
4
Wow..Plainly Justice Thomas assumes that everyone on trial is guilty...so any extra bias is a silent bias..
"Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. He said that Mr. Flowers was plainly guilty and that Mr. Evans had offered ample race-neutral reasons for excluding potential jurors."
So much for a fair trial ..and actually being innocent..
I guess he's following Trump's mantra of execute them..whether they are innocent or guilty (Central Park 5 reference)
143
@wfkinnc
Did you read his dissent? Please do. This silly 3 line summary, does a poor job at explaining his position.
2
Thomas doesn’t care that Evans did not turn over potentially exculpatory information from the defense as he is legally required to. There’s plenty more egregious behavior by Evans that doesn’t matter to Thomas.
4
@profwilliams
I read Thomas, J.'s dissent and was not all that impressed despite my law degree, legal experience, appellate experience (state and federal), and several years on the bench in a court of general jurisdiction and a year on an intertribal appellate court before I retired. (My law school was a top 20, and I was a top 25% student, so I am sure I understand him, too).
I agree that one sentence does not fully explain his position, but I found his dicta alarming and counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Bill of Rights hardly what I want to see from a Justice on the Supreme Court.
5
Justice Thomas is the Donald Trump of justices. Warped opinions that belie reality.
Unbelievably awful opinions.
230
@Tim
"Justice Thomas is the Donald Trump of justices. Warped opinions that belie reality." And not because they are stupid--but because they are so full of spite and vengeance.
23
Mississippi is an embarrassment to justice.
24
But sadly, Corey and Kamala find the time to attack Joe Biden and miss the chance to educate America about the real world racism that continues to exist today. **sigh**
18
The south just cannot seem to shake the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
26
@Amanda Jones, and the South never will. I have lived there, couldn't stand the absolute societal saturation of racism. They have been taught since babies the lies that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. They act like they were the ones being persecuted, not the blacks they so joyously lynched. The partying/joy (Yeehah!) I saw on p.m. news in Texas in '80s when a prison inmate was executed made me ill. It was a disgusting/horrible truth I learned about humans/U.S. citizens that I hadn't learned in my home state of West Virginia, which is not part of the South. West Va. was the only state created by the Civil War. In North Carolina where I lived for two years, the racism was as thick as their accents. In West Va., I grew up learning to be afraid that the KKK might come after my father because he was Catholic. It wasn't just blacks the KKK went after. West Va. was not perfect and has slipped into a disgustingly ignorant iteration of itself now with a majority being in full support of Trump. But I was never taught racism by my mother or father or in my schools. Over the years, we West by God Virginians have always had a saying, "Thank God for Mississippi." The reason: West. Va. is often at a low ranking, in a close contest w/ Mississippi as being poorest/most backward state in the nation. But Mississippi has almost always been below West Va. in whatever categories states are being compared in. Never thought I'd die without seeing any reduction of racial hate.
4
@Amanda Jones
That is because there is no real desire to do so amongst most of the white population.
3
This is easy: Doug Evans should be disbarred and imprisoned.
329
That seems to be the logical conclusion, if the highest court in the land ruled he had a history of tainting trials with racial bias. But I guess that's for the Mississippi bar to decide, which they will probably just ignore... This is not a jailable offense though.
3
I strongly urge you to listen to Season 2 of In the Dark podcast, “The Case of Curtis Flowers.” It is an understatement to state it is superb. It is journalism of the 1st order. It also does indeed raise---though not specifically in the podcast--- very serious questions about accountability for prosecutors and why that item must be reevaluated. Because among other things Curtis Flowers absolutely could be tried a 7th time. And since the prosecutor is up for reelection this November that is a safe bet. For those who have raised questions about Mr. Flowers getting off on technicalities that too is addressed in the podcast. These issues are not technicalities, but are requirements for rules of law and courtroom (and by extension decency). Beyond the sheer number of trials and the issues associated with that it is likely you may come away with the thought Mr. Curtis Flowers did not commit those murders.
I’ll end as I began: as the article references, please listen to the podcast “In the Dark, Season 2.” Please.
304
He should be put on trial again.
4
@EiB I couldn’t agree more! The racism is so apparent in this case. As my dear old dad would have said, “they [the prosecution] are as subtle as a toilet seat.”
8
there is no evidence left. witnesses purjured themselves. he should be released. enough already
28
In regards to racism, few things have changed in Mississippi. Shockingly pathetic.
69
@LiquidLight
I was thinking the same thing. Phil Ochs explained it over 50 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7fgB0m_y2I
3
Today is a good day. Batson finally has some meaning. Also, Kavanaugh demonstrates independence from the most conservative members of the bench. Batson is an example of evidence of the continued and current impact of slavery. It is fitting that this decision comes in the wake of reparations discussions.
69
Any discussion of the role of precedence in this case, by either those Justices in the majority or minority? If so, how could this decision potentially affect Roe?
Why on earth would this decision affect Roe? And as Kavanagh said, they simply supported an earlier court decision and applied those principles to this case. I imagine that for an abortion decision, they will be questioning the very validity of Roe v Wade.
1
There were things prosecutors did in this case did that should get them indicted. Meanwhile Flowers stays in jail for a crime he probably didn't commit and certainly, if the prosecution had been ethical, his guilt wouldn't have been beyond doubt.
Read the facts of the case and draw your own conclusions, but there are too many cases in which prosecutors throw justice in the toilet and knowingly allow the conviction of innocent people because prosecutors are untouchable for their bad behavior.
This may be a relatively rare occurrence, but no one should be above the law and people in law enforcement shouldn't be given legal protection for moral crimes that convict the innocent. These are crimes committed against every citizen when they are committed against one.
76
The supreme Court looks nothing like the makeup of the country they rule.
26
@mons
Perhaps you should look up racial demographics in the USA. You might be surprised by what you learn.
Also, they don't "rule" as you suggested. They interpret the constitution.
12
@BB
Racial composition: latino 17.8%, white non-Hispanic 61.3%, African American 12.7% with the remainder being Native American and Asian or other. The supreme court has one African American and one Latina. At 78%, whites are over represented on the court.
We should also look up the gender composition. Think we will find that women are a third of it?
Are we surprised yet?
3
Can anyone site any case where Clarence Thomas decided for a POC?
94
Welcome to Mississippi, where time stands still since the late 1800's.
“To understand the world, you must first understand a place like Mississippi.”
- William Faulkner
Good to see the Supreme Court overrule the Confederacy which is still alive and well in the South.
347
@Socrates
The Confederacy has spread considerably beyond the South. Unfortunately racism never needed to spread.
Enjoy your weekend.
4
@Socrates This prosecutor needs to be sanctioned and disbarred.
But as another commentator points out, racism in the criminal justice system isn't limited to the south. Look under your nose in NJ and NY, please, before congratulating your part of the world.
I've lived here 30 years and am appalled at how people here pat themselves on the back for being enlightened while perpetrating their very own forms of racism.
Counties in NYC were covered by the Voting Rights Act due to systemic discrimination in allowing minorities access to the polls. Not just former Confederate states.
The school system and its funding here is as racist, segregated and discriminatory as anywhere else.
Housing here is far more segregated than elsewhere in the country, including areas in the south.
I'm fine with calling out the Confederacy. No one I know from the my former southern home is proud of it or would praise it in any way.
But I see more Confederate flags and license plates in upstate NY than I do on visits home to the south.
Maybe to understand the world, you need to be able to see what's right in front of you? Because parts of it look an awful lot like Mississippi to me.
8
@Socrates
Eloquently stated, the truth is that all of the South is becoming like Mississippi. What is the saying? one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi.....
6
Just another reminder of what a racist state Mississippi is. Frankly, I never understood why African Americans continue to live their. It’s pretty clear that despite the Civil Right movement, whites in the state continue to view blacks as second class citizens. As evidence, look no further than the racist who was recently elected Senator.
I always wonder how much progress this country could have made if we didn’t have the millstone of the South dragging us down.
52
"Frankly, I never understood why African-Americans continue to live (there)."
You need to understand that some people cannot afford to just up and leave. Or that there are other reasons for remaining in a community that others may think is not the best for them.
41
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I’m from Mississippi but now live in Brooklyn. The north is no panacea. Look no further than when the city tries to build homeless shelters in predominantly white neighborhoods. The vitriol is astounding
7
Clarence Thomas dissented. Gee, what a surprise.
80
It's fun to guess how each Justice will vote. The easiest to predict is Clarence Thomas.
99
It is beginning to sound more-and-more like Clarence Thomas has become a demagogue wholly disconnected from reality; more comfortable with jurisprudence as nothing more than cud-chewing; his angels are dancing on pin-heads to tunes only he can hear.
Neil Gorsich- on-the-other-hand is a scary proposition whose disdain for the law is now cemented by this idiotic dissent.
271
@Candlewick Wait... jurisprudence is not a bad word. The problem with some justices, who shall remain nameless because I would NEVER criticize one by name (Ha), is that some are not satisfied with law as a dynamic, sociological phenomenon. They, instead, prefer to look at law as "AN" historical analysis of the philosophical leanings of only a select few of their personal favorite founding FATHERS, with whose particular 17th- 18th century politics they agree.
They don't need any modern thinking, because then they'd need to consider racial parity, civil rights, voting rights, gender equity, feminism, reproduction, etc. SERIOUSLY, instead of blowing it off with a "state's rights" platitude or something worse.
7
@Candlewick
Sorry, but “disconnected from reality” is a brush that paints a broad stripe.
1
@Awestruck
What are you 'sorry' about? Sorry about Clarence Thomas' complete disconnect from reality? What brush would you paint his decades of silence and dissents with?
10
It shouldn’t have taken that long to stop that (allegedly) racist prosecutor, but glad they did. And it comes at a good time for the country.
15
Maybe someone should inform this Mississippi prosecutor that the South lost the Civil War...
57
@DL
The South lost the Civil War on the battlefield but reversed its defeat in the court of politics and public opinion. It convinced the rest of the country to let it handle its racial problem itself, and did so by gleefully driving much of its black population to leave and abusing the rest. Northern black communities were overwhelmed by hordes of refugees who were unprepared for modern life, since they had never been allowed to be citizens and were poorly educated and often semiliterate.
Rather than being outraged at the South for what it did, many in the North accepted the racist Southern explanations for why the blacks were the way they were.
The most recent Georgia and Florida governor election results show that the Mississippi prosecutor does not need to be informed about the results of the Civil War.
4
@DL They lost in 1865, but started acting like they'd won in around 1878, and haven't changed their tune since.
I blame Rutherford B Hayes, one of the villains of US history most people have never thought about. He cut a deal to remove the US troops that were enforcing Reconstruction from the former Confederacy in exchange for getting the southern support he needed to win the presidency. Shortly after that, black folks were barred from voting via terrorism, the southern governments were "reconstructed" by having the anti-racist Republican party removed from power, Jim Crow laws became commonplace, and lynchings were a regular occurrance.
4
Given the Supreme Court's far right political bent, it's a certainty that racist prosecutor Doug Evans is aghast that the Court ruled against him. With Brett Kavanaugh slapping Evans down, I'm sure that the president is very disappointed in his hand-picked Justice. As in the Emmett Till case 63 years ago, Evans is proof positive that nothing has changed in Mississippi.
40
@Red Sox, ‘04, ‘07, ‘13, ‘18
Totally agree. I (a white dude) sat on a murder jury a few years ago, and the kids (sadly, yes a 17 and a 22 yr old) were clearly guilty. I would say that the two black women on the jury were the most eager to convict. Because the prosecutor presented compelling evidence. I'm not saying that being black or not black, or a being woman or a man had anything to do with it--just that it doesn't matter in a case where the prosecutor isn't relying on race as a stand-in for evidence.
As an aside, it was an interesting but ultimately horrifying experience. It doesn't feel good to get "bad guys" off the street and in prison for the rest of their lives when the bad guys are kids with nothing going for them.
4
@silver vibes
Silver,
What you say is nonsense. The court is not far right. Have you read or at least seen their recent decisions.
1
@silver vibes: Clarence Thomas (I refuse to acknowledge his title) wrote in his dissent that the defendant was clearly guilty of murder. That could have been true. But prosecutor Evans undermined his case with repeated strikes of potential black jurors. He apparently thought that non-white jurors would, a priori, vote to acquit. If his case was so strong, he should have relied upon the common sense of the jury. His racism revealed his secret fear: that “they all stick together.” Like “they” (white DA’s) don’t.
232
Justice Thomas never disappoints.
612
@db2
“The media often seeks ‘to titillate rather than to educate and inform,’ ”
Ain't that the truth!!!
5
@db2 However, he IS a disappointment on so many levels.
40
@db2 -- Thomas is NOT a justice. He sees Anita Hill's face every morning when he sits down to decide a case.
40
On a consistent, regular basis, past performances conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt Justice Clarence Thomas either recuses himself, or goes against what most people in the USA believe in. It is inexcusable. However, this is not the point being made here, and "In The Dark" is brilliantly presented. I commend all involved that show what truly happened; over and over. Thank you for this excellent piece.
72
In analyzing his decisions so far, Kavanaugh seems to be a lot more sober, than his nomination hearing would have expected! A pragmatist after all!
45
@Counter Measures. Let's look again in a few years, after the crisis in confidence and trust in the supreme court, and his reputation, is on the mend. Same goes for chief justice Robert's as he tries to save the court. We'll see what they truly believe.
26
Why are 36 peremptory challenges allowed? How about 2. Or none. Strike for cause by all means but less peremptory challenges mean less bias, less time spent on voir dire, fewer jurors called to duty and lower costs!
51
That was 36 over 4 trials. 9 per. For a death penalty case it's not excessive.
8
@Decimus
Actually peremptory challenges help speed up the process of jury selection because as a lawyer when you have a deep-seated sense that a person should not serve as a juror, you don't have to spend a lot of time trying to build a record to convince the court of the person's bias, etc.
5
@RunDog
The "deep seated sense" is never wrong. What, never? Well, hardly ever ...
3
I wonder if this is not another case of trying to frame a guilty man. If Curtis Flowers is innocent then justice prevailed. But if he escapes prosecution by way of technicality then it’s another instance when, where the constitution is concerned, we take the good with the bad.
1
@Oliver I would urge you to listen to the podcast. They address that issue of "technicality" in the podcast. As the article mentions the podcast is "In the Dark, season 2: The Case of Curtis Flowers."
7
And the white Mississippi prosecutor -who has a history of excluding black jurors ought to be disbarred for racism - which is absolutely not what jury selection is all about. If the prosecutor is not disbarred at least render a severe and meaningful penalty for such deliberately heinous behavior.
379
@kkm
Yes indeed. Why has this DA Doug Evans not been disbarred? Why has he been allowed to continue his reign of unchecked lawlessness? Why has he not been held accountable for his actions? He has fostered hatred between people and mistrust of the legal system and oppression of blacks -- what a lifetime achievement.
67
@kkm Unfortunately, racism won't disqualify him from being a lawyer, but it should DISQUALIFY him from prosecuting this case. He cannot be objective (obviously) and he cannot follow the established law of the United States and its several states (something he swore to do when he took his oath), so he should have to sit this out. He SHOULD be disciplined for NOT sitting this case out, really, and I think that's what you and others are saying about his track record wih Mr. Flowers (and I agree 100%).
6
@E.G.: Thanks very much for your comment. I think there are disciplinary responses to this Mississippi prosecutor - if not the racism how about wasting thousands if not millions of tax dollars on a court case that was tried six - yes, six - times without resolution. How about disbarment for incompetency at the expense of all Mississippi taxpayers?
5
The podcast of "In The Dark" is utterly riveting and first class. Both seasons are incredible. Madeline Baran is meticulous, polite, and relentless in her investigation and reporting. She was born for what she does. I admire her work and look forward eagerly to hearing more. And I pray that Mr. Flowers and his family finally are given a fair trial in a different venue, with a different DA.
146