The Doctrine of Thomasism

By DON ROLLINS

The long narrative of the US Supreme Court is fraught with justices that can only be described as our favorite mistakes — predictably milquetoast judges with few apparent agendas or axes to grind. No firebrands, no change agents, no scorched earth minority opinions. Just a Supreme that mostly came and went.

But of course that narrative is no longer operational, nor even possible. For the past 30 years Republicans in particular have been surgical in their efforts to fill lower court judgeships with party ideologues, effectively guaranteeing a pool of conservative possibilities at the ready. Per Roe’s shameful reversal, these days there can be no such thing as a moderate Supreme. Nobody just comes and goes, nobody doesn’t have agendas.

The Supreme laying claim to the most radical agendas in this fragile constitutional moment is also its longest serving: Clarence Thomas. An ultraconservative’s ultraconservative, Thomas has for three decades been the court’s originalist standard bearer, but not always its loudest. (That label was most often reserved for the late Anton Scalia, Thomas’ more vocal but equally narrow minded court colleague.)

But with Roe in his mirror it appears Thomas has turned up the volume, calling for the court to review other landmark decisions based on individual rights and freedoms: Contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut); Sexual freedom and expression (Lawrence v. Texas) and; Marriage equality (Obergfell v. Hodges).

These efforts amount to a far ranging and medieval doctrine worthy of the label Thomasism; for Thomas’ America is Trump’s America come to pass, complete with draconian prohibitions placed on anyone seeking an abortion, filing a marriage certificate or engaging in whatever sex acts so offend Thomas. The reversal of these three cases alone would not only be acts of organized oppression, but acts of permission for employers, universities, rental owners, physicians, loan agencies - anyone, anywhere wanting to deny full personhood on the basis of personal autonomy.

As with Thomas himself, Thomasism relies on a deeply distorted telling of the national origin story: The framers weren’t faultless, just close; The documents they produced weren’t perfect, just close; The role of the high court is not to interpret every syllable of the constitution, just close. Thus Thomasism requires of the nine justices a twisted sense of saviorism across the ages - a view of themselves as belonging in the long line of conservative judges that came before, likewise committed to protecting the letter of the constitution from the meddling liberal relativists.

Wrapped in this faux heroism, Thomasism also minimizes if not dismisses many of the advances wrought in individual and civil rights. The fifties and sixties were not about throwing off the mantle of oppression, but instances of indulgence and excess in the name of a fairer America. Better the young pull themselves up by the bootstraps than waste time marching in the streets. Use the system as it is.

There is a familiar get-off-my-lawn thesis running through Thomas’ begrudging worldview. The craving for orderliness and certainty despite the messiness of democracy (and life) is striking, even chilling when possessed by an associate justice of the highest court in the land.

While conservatives may resist a discernible doctrine called Thomasism, that does nothing to dispel its obvious, disturbing existence. The question is not is it real, but how much suffering will it inflict along the way?

Don Rollins is a Unitarian Universalist minister in Jackson, Ohio. Email donaldlrollins@gmail.com.

From The Progressive Populist, November 1, 2022

Populist.com