Cafe Insider Preet Bharara writes this letter to his readers. All that follows is a direct quote from him:
Dear Reader,
Justice Clarence Thomas is famously reticent on the bench. He doesn’t talk much. He doesn’t ask questions often. He once went a full decade without making a single query of counsel at oral argument. But in the wake o…
Cafe Insider Preet Bharara writes this letter to his readers. All that follows is a direct quote from him:
Dear Reader,
Justice Clarence Thomas is famously reticent on the bench. He doesn’t talk much. He doesn’t ask questions often. He once went a full decade without making a single query of counsel at oral argument. But in the wake of the leaked Alito draft opinion that would undo Roe v. Wade and the ensuing protests, Thomas is raising his voice. But it is impossible to accept the truth of the matters he has asserted in recent out-of-court statements.
Speaking at a judicial conference in Georgia two weeks ago, Thomas said that, as a society, "we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like.” He went on: "We can't be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that."
Well, that’s almost as rich as Elon Musk.
Let’s talk about outcomes and discuss who the addicts are. Thomas willfully ignores 49 years of agitation by anti-abortion activists who have never been able to abide an outcome they didn’t like.
Because of an addiction to a particular outcome, legislatures in at least 13 states have passed so-called trigger laws, which would ban abortion to varying degrees in the event Roe is overturned. The legislature in Texas, in passing the bounty provisions in SB8, and the legislature in Mississippi, in passing the anti-abortion law now being considered by the Supreme Court, announced loudly and clearly that they could not abide the outcome in Roe, which has been settled law for half a century.
Consider the endless campaign to alter the balance of the Court, a counter-majoritarian effort undertaken with particular zeal and focus. And the singular agenda item was to undo an outcome they have never liked or learned to live with.
Consider also the record of violence and murder (and bullying) by anti-abortion forces over the years.
In fact, in the wake of pervasive harassment and obstruction outside abortion clinics, in 1994 Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) to protect the rights guaranteed by Roe.
In July 1994, Paul Hill, an anti-abortion protester and former pastor, murdered Dr. John Bayard Britton and James H. Barrett, a clinic volunteer. The attack took place outside of a women’s health center.
In January 1998, anti-abortion activist Eric Rudolph planted and detonated a bomb outside of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing Robert Sanderson, a security guard for the clinic. The other victim was Emily Lyons, a nurse at the clinic, who was maimed and left half-blind.
In October of that year, anti-abortionist James Kopp killed Dr. Barnett Slepian with a high-powered rifle. Dr. Slepian was standing in his kitchen with his family when Kopp shot him through the window.
In November 2015, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., shot 12 people in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. Three were killed while nine others were injured. Dear later turned himself in stating, “I am a warrior for the babies.”
According to an analysis by Vox, between 1977 and 2015, there were eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, and 186 arsons targeted at abortion clinics and providers across the United States.
Clarence Thomas is up in arms over some peaceful protests. He might think about all the murder and mayhem visited upon doctors and women and clinics since Roe was decided.
There is, of course, another rich irony in Thomas’s lecturing us about accepting outcomes. What, in recent times, is the least accepted outcome on the part of a radical group of conspiracy-theorists in America? It’s the election of 2020. We had a free and fair process. The outcome was that Biden won, and Trump lost. And yet we have legions of elected officials and Kraken lawyers and cable television hosts who have not learned to live with that outcome.
More than that, we had a group of violent rioters try to bully a co-equal branch of government into doing that which they could not achieve fair and square at the ballot box – installing Donald Trump in the White House for a second term. They didn’t hold up some signs on a street; they stormed the Capitol, chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” and looked for members of Congress to hurt.
More than that, among the group of deniers and insurrectionist sympathizers is Justice Thomas’s very own wife, who was advocating to the Trump circle that the election outcome must be reversed. Given his wife’s involvement in the Big Lie, instead of doing the ethical thing and recusing himself from matters relating to January 6th, Thomas has the nerve to berate peaceful pro-choice advocates about the need to accept outcomes they don’t like.
Here’s the thing about outcomes. People are more likely to live with one if the process leading to the outcome has indicia of fairness and good faith. If there is a perception of cheating or gamesmanship or mendacity, acceptance will naturally be more difficult. For many, the near certainty that Roe will be overruled is a hard pill to swallow for just these reasons. The denial of a seat to Merrick Garland; the rush to seat Amy Coney Barrett; the insincere reverence for settled precedents mouthed by various Republican nominees at their confirmation hearings; and the bad faith constitutional arguments contained in the draft opinion – all of these conspire to undermine the legitimacy of this new outcome, perceived to be wrought by radicals who couldn’t live with the last outcome.
Whatever else may be true, on the issue of living with outcomes you don’t like, Clarence Thomas should sit this one out.
Does he LAY it out! And this line for Thomas, 'Well, that’s almost as rich as Elon Musk.' Thank you Lynell. This is one hell of a letter from Preet Bharara. Bravo!
Morning, Lynell! When I read Dr Richardson’s letter this morning and Justice Thomas’s statement about “not living with outcomes we don’t like,” I choked. Literally.
Lecture your wife, you hypocrite. And by the way, understand that some of her friends see your interracial marriage as an abomination and seek to make it illegal.
Preet should be AG. He’s a man of strong clear legal opinions and takes action. That’s why Trump fired him. Why isn’t he on the front lines instead of off to the side making commentary?
And the cretin has the unmitigated gall to whine that the respect for the court is diminishing, what a tool. Preet, thank you for the reminders of the horror, we need them
Yes, Preet, this outline of the recent history of who doesn't like outcomes is perfect. And implicates (again) how complicit Thomas is in his "decisions". I hope he is impeached.
Cafe Insider Preet Bharara writes this letter to his readers. All that follows is a direct quote from him:
Dear Reader,
Justice Clarence Thomas is famously reticent on the bench. He doesn’t talk much. He doesn’t ask questions often. He once went a full decade without making a single query of counsel at oral argument. But in the wake of the leaked Alito draft opinion that would undo Roe v. Wade and the ensuing protests, Thomas is raising his voice. But it is impossible to accept the truth of the matters he has asserted in recent out-of-court statements.
Speaking at a judicial conference in Georgia two weeks ago, Thomas said that, as a society, "we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like.” He went on: "We can't be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that."
Well, that’s almost as rich as Elon Musk.
Let’s talk about outcomes and discuss who the addicts are. Thomas willfully ignores 49 years of agitation by anti-abortion activists who have never been able to abide an outcome they didn’t like.
Because of an addiction to a particular outcome, legislatures in at least 13 states have passed so-called trigger laws, which would ban abortion to varying degrees in the event Roe is overturned. The legislature in Texas, in passing the bounty provisions in SB8, and the legislature in Mississippi, in passing the anti-abortion law now being considered by the Supreme Court, announced loudly and clearly that they could not abide the outcome in Roe, which has been settled law for half a century.
Consider the endless campaign to alter the balance of the Court, a counter-majoritarian effort undertaken with particular zeal and focus. And the singular agenda item was to undo an outcome they have never liked or learned to live with.
Consider also the record of violence and murder (and bullying) by anti-abortion forces over the years.
In fact, in the wake of pervasive harassment and obstruction outside abortion clinics, in 1994 Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) to protect the rights guaranteed by Roe.
In July 1994, Paul Hill, an anti-abortion protester and former pastor, murdered Dr. John Bayard Britton and James H. Barrett, a clinic volunteer. The attack took place outside of a women’s health center.
In January 1998, anti-abortion activist Eric Rudolph planted and detonated a bomb outside of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing Robert Sanderson, a security guard for the clinic. The other victim was Emily Lyons, a nurse at the clinic, who was maimed and left half-blind.
In October of that year, anti-abortionist James Kopp killed Dr. Barnett Slepian with a high-powered rifle. Dr. Slepian was standing in his kitchen with his family when Kopp shot him through the window.
In November 2015, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., shot 12 people in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. Three were killed while nine others were injured. Dear later turned himself in stating, “I am a warrior for the babies.”
According to an analysis by Vox, between 1977 and 2015, there were eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, and 186 arsons targeted at abortion clinics and providers across the United States.
Clarence Thomas is up in arms over some peaceful protests. He might think about all the murder and mayhem visited upon doctors and women and clinics since Roe was decided.
There is, of course, another rich irony in Thomas’s lecturing us about accepting outcomes. What, in recent times, is the least accepted outcome on the part of a radical group of conspiracy-theorists in America? It’s the election of 2020. We had a free and fair process. The outcome was that Biden won, and Trump lost. And yet we have legions of elected officials and Kraken lawyers and cable television hosts who have not learned to live with that outcome.
More than that, we had a group of violent rioters try to bully a co-equal branch of government into doing that which they could not achieve fair and square at the ballot box – installing Donald Trump in the White House for a second term. They didn’t hold up some signs on a street; they stormed the Capitol, chanted “Hang Mike Pence,” and looked for members of Congress to hurt.
More than that, among the group of deniers and insurrectionist sympathizers is Justice Thomas’s very own wife, who was advocating to the Trump circle that the election outcome must be reversed. Given his wife’s involvement in the Big Lie, instead of doing the ethical thing and recusing himself from matters relating to January 6th, Thomas has the nerve to berate peaceful pro-choice advocates about the need to accept outcomes they don’t like.
Here’s the thing about outcomes. People are more likely to live with one if the process leading to the outcome has indicia of fairness and good faith. If there is a perception of cheating or gamesmanship or mendacity, acceptance will naturally be more difficult. For many, the near certainty that Roe will be overruled is a hard pill to swallow for just these reasons. The denial of a seat to Merrick Garland; the rush to seat Amy Coney Barrett; the insincere reverence for settled precedents mouthed by various Republican nominees at their confirmation hearings; and the bad faith constitutional arguments contained in the draft opinion – all of these conspire to undermine the legitimacy of this new outcome, perceived to be wrought by radicals who couldn’t live with the last outcome.
Whatever else may be true, on the issue of living with outcomes you don’t like, Clarence Thomas should sit this one out.
My best, Preet
Does he LAY it out! And this line for Thomas, 'Well, that’s almost as rich as Elon Musk.' Thank you Lynell. This is one hell of a letter from Preet Bharara. Bravo!
Yes, Fern, he lays it all out beautifully.
Morning, Lynell! When I read Dr Richardson’s letter this morning and Justice Thomas’s statement about “not living with outcomes we don’t like,” I choked. Literally.
Lecture your wife, you hypocrite. And by the way, understand that some of her friends see your interracial marriage as an abomination and seek to make it illegal.
Denial is not a river in Egypt, Clarence!
"Denial"? LOL!!
Preet should be AG. He’s a man of strong clear legal opinions and takes action. That’s why Trump fired him. Why isn’t he on the front lines instead of off to the side making commentary?
Well, maybe this way, he might reach the millions of people who are “undecided”.
Hypocrisy thy name is Clarence. Thanks so much for sharing, Lynell.
❤️You're welcome, Gail!
And the cretin has the unmitigated gall to whine that the respect for the court is diminishing, what a tool. Preet, thank you for the reminders of the horror, we need them
❤️Heart button on strike!
Did I read this right?? That “pro life” activists have murdered people in the name of PRO life?!?! 😱 Surely you jest!!
Yes, Cathy, I believe you did.
And my and our best back to Preet. That letter is a wham, bam, thank you ma’am.
You are sizzlin’ with the links today, Lynell.
Just glad there was enough bacon to go around...thanks, Christine (Have I already wished you "morning"?)
Yes, Preet, this outline of the recent history of who doesn't like outcomes is perfect. And implicates (again) how complicit Thomas is in his "decisions". I hope he is impeached.
Agree, Pam. Someone needs to get this guy a mirror!
Oh WOW, Lynell! Preet hit this one out of the park! The problem with Thomas is that he thinks he is white and right!
Oh, my, Marlene. Maybe so!
Look who he’s married to…
She's a "bute"!
Excellent. Glad to have read this, thanks.
Thanks for sharing this. I also shared it just now on my FB page, to amplify his well-written analysis.
Very nice, Ellen. I hope it gets the traction it deserves.
This is awesome. Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you for posting this. I haven’t listened to Preet’s podcast in a while, this reminded me. I am going to listen to him again. TY
You're welcome, Virginia. I hope you get to reconnect soon!