By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly voiced strong criticism of progressivism, deeming it an existential threat to the foundational principles of the United States. Speaking at the University of Texas at Austin Law School, Thomas asserted that a spirit of “cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus” toward America pervades the nation, placing blame on “intellectuals” and higher education institutions for diminishing founding values. He argued that progressivism seeks to replace the Declaration of Independence’s premise of God-given rights with the notion that rights originate from government, fostering subservience incompatible with constitutional ideals. Thomas also expressed concern over Washington officials who he believes lack commitment to core tenets such as free enterprise and the Constitution’s original meaning, often masking their failures as pragmatic institutionalism. He concluded with a call for Americans to emulate the courage of the Declaration’s signers to secure the nation’s future.
Read the original article here
It appears there’s been quite a stir surrounding remarks made by a Supreme Court Justice, who, at 77 years old, has apparently unleashed a rather vehement diatribe against what he terms “intellectuals.” This outpouring, described by some as “unhinged,” has ignited a firestorm of reactions, with many questioning the appropriateness of such public pronouncements from a member of the highest court in the land.
At the heart of these controversial comments is a strong critique of progressivism, which the Justice seems to view as a fundamental threat to the very foundations of the United States. He articulated a view that progressivism aims to dismantle core principles established by the nation’s founders, suggesting that it posits rights and dignity as deriving from government rather than from a higher, transcendent source. This perspective, he argued, fosters a subservience incompatible with a Constitution premised on such divinely ordained rights.
However, this framing has been met with significant pushback. Many observers argue that the very notion of rights and dignity isn’t a matter of government grant but an inherent aspect of human existence itself. The idea that good governance should primarily be about enforcing and protecting these inherent rights, rather than granting them, is a central counterargument. Furthermore, some have pointed out the historical irony of a Justice speaking this way, particularly considering that 250 years ago, the very rights he champions would not have been extended to him due to his race.
The Justice’s dismissive stance towards “intellectuals” also raises a significant question: what does it take to be a Supreme Court Justice if not a degree of intellectualism? The very role requires a deep engagement with complex legal texts, historical precedents, and philosophical arguments. To openly disparage intellectualism seems, to many, to be a contradiction in terms, given the demanding nature of the job. This sentiment is echoed by the observation that the ideals the nation was founded upon were themselves the product of considerable intellectual endeavor and study of prior philosophical traditions.
Adding fuel to the fire are concerns about the Justice’s personal conduct and potential conflicts of interest. Whispers of luxurious vacations on private yachts and accusations of corruption tied to accepting gifts have surfaced, leading to speculation that these pronouncements might be influenced by external factors or designed to appease certain political factions or wealthy donors, rather than being purely driven by deeply held legal or philosophical convictions. This transactional view suggests a willingness to align with agendas for personal benefit, undermining the impartiality expected of a judge.
The comments also seem to tap into a broader societal cynicism, with the Justice acknowledging a lack of faith in politics. However, his proposed remedy involves a nation committed to what he describes as a “righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety or to the original meaning of the Constitution.” This has been interpreted by some as a distinctly Christian nationalist viewpoint, one that implicitly calls for the marginalization of those who do not align with these specific tenets. This is seen as particularly ironic, given his own background and the historical context of his existence, where many of the founders’ notions of “traditional morality” would have excluded him.
The assertion that rights and dignities come from God, rather than government, has also sparked debate about the role of religion in governance. While the nation was founded by people who were often religious, the idea of a divinely ordained system of rights, rather than rights protected by a constitution, raises questions for many. The founders themselves included deists, agnostics, and atheists, and the concept of natural rights, independent of any specific religious doctrine, was central to their thinking. This distinction between a “god-founded nation” and a “nation founded by god-fearing people” highlights the nuances being discussed, with many emphasizing that the rights are inherent and protected by human institutions, not dictated by divine decree.
The backdrop of the January 6th events and the involvement of the Justice’s wife in efforts to overturn election results further colors the perception of these remarks. This context, coupled with accusations of past inappropriate behavior, has led some to question the credibility and motives behind his public statements. The idea that someone accused of such transgressions would be lecturing on morality or constitutional integrity is seen as profoundly hypocritical.
Ultimately, the critique leveled against progressivism and the broader disdain for intellectualism by this Supreme Court Justice have triggered a robust discussion about the nature of rights, the role of government, the influence of personal beliefs on judicial interpretation, and the expected conduct of those in positions of ultimate legal authority. The incident serves as a stark reminder that the pronouncements of high-ranking officials can have significant ripple effects, prompting critical examination of their views and their potential impact on the fabric of society and the interpretation of law.