Clarence Thomas, Silent but Sure
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
NYT
Let’s hear it for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Notice that I did not say let’s hear from Justice Thomas. February 22 was the fourth anniversary of the last time Justice Thomas asked a question during an argument. His silent presence on the bench has evolved into a weirdly compelling example of performance art.
But my point is not to scold him for his obvious disdain of the ritual of appellate argument, an exercise that all the other justices appear to find if not always enlightening, at least worth the effort. (The newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, has thrown herself into the arguments with gusto, asking pertinent questions with penetrating follow-up). Rather, I want to call attention to the impressive consistency of the views that he actually expresses in his written opinions — consistency being so unusual a commodity these days that it shouldn’t go unremarked on those rare occasions when an individual holding high public office displays it.
The subject is prison, specifically the meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” In February 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Hudson v. McMillian that a prisoner need not have suffered a “significant injury” in order to pursue a lawsuit against prison officials for the use of excessive force. Keith Hudson, the Louisiana inmate who brought that case, had been kicked and punched by three guards while he was handcuffed and shackled. He suffered bruises, swelling and loosened teeth, injuries that a federal appeals court, in dismissing his lawsuit, deemed so minor as to be beneath the notice of the Eighth Amendment.
Mr. Hudson’s appeal to the Supreme Court was supported by the George H.W. Bush administration, and John G. Roberts Jr., then a deputy solicitor general, argued on the inmate’s behalf. In an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court reinstated the lawsuit. What mattered in such a situation, the court held, was not the extent of the injury, but the nature of the force that was applied. “When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated,” Justice O’Connor wrote.
(More here.)
NYT
Let’s hear it for Justice Clarence Thomas.
Notice that I did not say let’s hear from Justice Thomas. February 22 was the fourth anniversary of the last time Justice Thomas asked a question during an argument. His silent presence on the bench has evolved into a weirdly compelling example of performance art.
But my point is not to scold him for his obvious disdain of the ritual of appellate argument, an exercise that all the other justices appear to find if not always enlightening, at least worth the effort. (The newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, has thrown herself into the arguments with gusto, asking pertinent questions with penetrating follow-up). Rather, I want to call attention to the impressive consistency of the views that he actually expresses in his written opinions — consistency being so unusual a commodity these days that it shouldn’t go unremarked on those rare occasions when an individual holding high public office displays it.
The subject is prison, specifically the meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” In February 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Hudson v. McMillian that a prisoner need not have suffered a “significant injury” in order to pursue a lawsuit against prison officials for the use of excessive force. Keith Hudson, the Louisiana inmate who brought that case, had been kicked and punched by three guards while he was handcuffed and shackled. He suffered bruises, swelling and loosened teeth, injuries that a federal appeals court, in dismissing his lawsuit, deemed so minor as to be beneath the notice of the Eighth Amendment.
Mr. Hudson’s appeal to the Supreme Court was supported by the George H.W. Bush administration, and John G. Roberts Jr., then a deputy solicitor general, argued on the inmate’s behalf. In an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court reinstated the lawsuit. What mattered in such a situation, the court held, was not the extent of the injury, but the nature of the force that was applied. “When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated,” Justice O’Connor wrote.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home