Liberal justices earn praise for ‘independence’ on Supreme Court, but Thomas truly stands alone, expert says

High praise for the Supreme Court’s newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, poured in after her first term came to a close this month.

As the high court’s first Black female justice, Jackson made history by not only authoring a record number of solo dissenting opinions but also speaking in oral arguments more than any first-term justice in history – and during a term that dealt with deep ideological issues like abortion, affirmative action and voting rights.

But some experts say that while the newest justice demonstrated sharp legal acumen and capability, it’s disingenuous to credit her while ignoring – and sometimes even disparaging – what a conservative Black justice, Clarence Thomas, has contributed for decades.

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, told the New York Times that Jackson’s tenure could mark "a new chapter for the court, where we see a real, sustained challenge to the conservative originalism of the current supermajority, equally rooted in text and history."

THOMAS BLASTS JACKSON'S 'RACE-INFUSED WORLD VIEW' IN SUPREME COURT RULING OUTLAWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

But critics said that while Jackson’s output is impressive, her jurisprudence so far rings hollow.

David B. Rivkin Jr., an appellate and constitutional law attorney and former White House counsel and Justice Department counsel, said Jackson’s "views are fundamentally stereotypical liberal."

"When it comes to the three liberal justices, I don't see much difference in their judicial philosophy. I don't see any difference between Justice Jackson’s positions and those of Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan. They virtually never part company, and their decisions are driven largely by the result-oriented philosophy – do they like what the decision is; it’s not about how you got there. And a result-oriented judging has nothing to do with the law," Rivkin told Fox News Digital.

Conversely, Rivkin said Thomas "marches to the beat of his own drum" – an aspect that’s largely overlooked or misconstrued by Thomas’ critics.

"The notion that the six conservative justices march in lockstep is absurd," Rivkin said. There are distinctive differences not only in how they decide specific cases but in their judicial philosophy. There are numerous permutations of originalism and textualism," Rivkin said.

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON'S DISSENTS ARE BETTER 'CLICKBAIT' THAN LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, EXPERTS SAY

 "Justice Thomas never fails to write exactly what he thinks. He's not very much driven by stare decisis (i.e., to honor/adhere to precedent) and is willing to discard past decisions that he thinks are wrong."

Megan Wold, partner at Cooper & Kirk and former clerk of Justice Samuel Alito, echoed the sentiment that Thomas has a proven record of adhering to "first principles," even if that means doing so alone.

"Justice Thomas is known for his first principles [of] jurisprudence. He asks not just what a doctrine is now but how it came to be that way," Wold said. "He understands that, especially where constitutional questions are concerned, it is important to get the law right because the Constitution cannot be easily changed."

Jackson and Thomas went toe-to-toe in the Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard case, in which the court’s majority said admissions policies that consider race as a factor is unconstitutional – a practice colloquially known as "affirmative action."

Jackson dissented along with Sotomayor and Kagan, calling the decision a "tragedy for us all."

"No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today's ruling makes things worse, not better," she wrote.

'DANGEROUS' DEMOCRAT JUDICIAL ETHICS BILL WOULD ALLOW ANY 'JACKALOON' TO DEMAND RECUSAL, SEN KENNEDY SAYS

Thomas delivered a separate concurring opinion in the majority, ripping apart Jackson's dissent for its "race-infused world view" that "falls flat at each step."

"Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything – good or bad – that happens in their lives," he wrote.

Thomas said he sought "to offer an originalist defense of the colorblind Constitution" and to "clarify that all forms of discrimination based on race – including so-called affirmative action – are prohibited under the Constitution; and to emphasize the pernicious effects of all such discrimination."

Since his nomination in 1991, Thomas has been the recipient of a litany of race-tinged aggression. He described his own confirmation hearing as a "high-tech lynching" after unsubstantiated claims of assault were used by Democrat senators to try and sink his nomination. 

Earlier this month, Minnesota Democrat Attorney General Keith Ellison went on a racially charged rant in which he compared Thomas to a house slave character in Quentin Tarantino’s 2012 film "Django Unchained."

In February, Georgia state Sen. Emanuel Jones used "racially charged language" to characterize Thomas, including calling him an ‘‘Uncle Tom’’ figure.

MSNBC host Joy Reid for years has "cast aspersions on Justice Thomas in a racially offensive manner … in light of her disagreement with his jurisprudence," a group of bipartisan senators recognized and condemned recently.

"What they do is engage in … vitriolic attacks, and pretty much everything they write and say is politically driven. People who don't like the substance of his decisions, they put out calumny against Thomas. That's unfortunately the world we live in," Rivkin said.

Federal Judge Amul Thapar, author of a new book, "The People’s Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories That Define Him," said Thomas’ critics who demonize him with racist attacks misrepresent his opinions.

"By cherry-picking his opinions or misrepresenting them, Justice Thomas’s critics claim that his originalism favors the rich over the poor, the strong over the weak, and corporations over consumers. They have called Justice Thomas ‘the cruelest Justice,’ ‘stupid’ and even ‘an Uncle Tom,’ a traitor to his race."

But Thapar argues that Thomas’s originalism "more often favors the ordinary people who come before the Court – because the core idea behind originalism is honoring the will of the people." 

"For years, he famously sat silent on the bench because he wanted to respect the advocates’ limited time to present their arguments. But Justice Thomas speaks forcefully in his opinions – not only about the original meaning of the law, but also about those who suffer from its misapplication," Thapar writes.

"Throughout his decades on the Court, Justice Thomas has repeatedly pointed out that when we actually follow the original meaning of the Constitution, the weak and the politically powerless stand to benefit the most."

An author at the publication Slate recently wrote that Jackson has "perfected the art of originalism jujitsu."

"With her first term wrapped up, it’s safe to say that Jackson really does have zero interest in the ‘living Constitution’ sometimes associated with liberal judging. In place of lofty odes to the majestic generalities of the Constitution, the justice has consistently favored its original meaning and a statute’s plain text over other considerations," the author wrote.

Wold argues that Jackson is now forced to play on the originalism field because of the years of groundwork by Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

"It is impossible to engage in modern constitutional debate without discussing the original public meaning of the Constitution," Wold said.

In his book, Thapar notes an observation of Justice Thomas that "Finding the right answer is often the least difficult problem," rather, it's "[h]aving the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism [that's] often much more difficult."

"No one knows this better than Justice Thomas," Thapar writes. "Nonetheless, he finds the right answer and then sticks to it."

Hunter Biden business associate Devon Archer to testify at House Oversight hearing

Hunter Biden’s longtime friend and business associate Devon Archer is set to testify before the House Oversight Committee Monday as part of the panel’s investigation into the Biden family ventures and whether President Biden was involved.

Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed Archer last month for testimony as part of his months-long investigation, which has yielded much evidence related to the Biden family's alleged foreign business schemes. At least three previously planned depositions were canceled by Archer for personal reasons.

DOJ REVEALS HUNTER BIDEN STILL UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION FOR POTENTIAL FARA VIOLATIONS

Archer is reportedly preparing to testify that President Biden met with dozens of Hunter’s business associates while he was serving as vice president between 2009 and 2017– information that, if true, puts into question the White House’s repeated assertions that Biden was "never in business with his son," never spoke with his son about his business dealings, and never had any knowledge of them.

Archer is expected to detail the meetings he witnessed in which both Bidens – Joe and Hunter – attended. Those meetings either took place in person or via telephone. Archer is also reportedly expected to testify that Hunter would introduce his father to foreign business partners or to prospective investors.

Archer’s intimate knowledge of the business arrangements and Joe Biden's alleged involvement come after years of working alongside Hunter Biden.

DOOR MAY BE OPEN TO IMPEACHING BIDEN FOR MISDEEDS COMMITTED PRIOR TO PRESIDENCY: LEGAL EXPERTS

Archer served on the board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings with Hunter beginning in 2014. He also co-founded investment firm Rosemont Seneca alongside the president’s son and Climate Envoy John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz. Archer served as managing director.

Archer also co-founded BHR Partners in 2013 – a joint-venture between Rosemont Seneca and Chinese investment firm Bohai Capital. BHR Partners is a Beijing-backed private equity firm controlled by Bank of China Limited.

Archer was forced to resign from BHR Partners in May 2016 after he came under federal investigation.

Archer in February 2022 was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for defrauding a Native American tribal entity and various investment advisory clients of tens of millions of dollars in connection with the issuance of bonds by the tribal entity and the subsequent sale of those bonds through "fraudulent and deceptive means," according to the Justice Department.

Archer’s testimony comes as part of Comer’s investigation, which has revealed that the Biden family and its business associates created more than 20 companies and received more than $10 million from foreign nationals while Joe Biden served as vice president and tried to conceal the source of those funds. 

BIDEN FAMILY RECEIVED MILLIONS FROM FOREIGN NATIONALS, TRIED TO CONCEAL SOURCE OF FUNDS: HOUSE OVERSIGHT

Comer said some of these payments could indicate attempts by the Biden family to "peddle influence" and said the family appeared to take steps to "conceal the source and total amount received from the foreign companies."

The committee has also zeroed in on a key FBI document – an FD-1023 form – containing allegations that Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, and Hunter Biden "coerced" Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky to pay them millions of dollars to help get the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the firm fired.

At the time, Joe Biden was in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy for the Obama administration. Biden has publicly boasted about his success in having that prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired, though supporters say removing Shokin was U.S. policy at the time.

The committee is likely to press Archer on whether he had any knowledge of any alleged payments to the Bidens, as he also sat on the Burisma board.

Sources told Fox News Digital that FD-1023 document is part of an ongoing federal investigation.

"Joe Biden lied to the American people when he said he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Evidence continues to be revealed that Joe Biden was very much involved in his family’s corrupt influence peddling schemes and he likely benefited financially," Comer said in a statement ahead of Archer’s deposition. "This includes deals with a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch and a CCP-linked energy company that generated millions for the Bidens and undermined American interests."

Comer added: "It certainly appears that Joe Biden and his family put themselves first and Americans last, but corporate media and the Justice Department continue to cover up for the Bidens."

Comer vowed that the Oversight Committee "will continue to follow the facts to provide the transparency and accountability that the American people demand and deserve."

"We look forward to speaking soon with Devon Archer about Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s business affairs," Comer said.

As for Archer, his attorney said there have been "many leaks and much speculation" about Archer’s potential statements to the committee, but said Monday, "Mr. Archer will get to speak for himself." 

About Us

Virtus (virtue, valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth)

Vincit (conquers, triumphs, and wins)