Transcripts For CSPAN3 After 20240704

Judge amul thapar, who sits the u. S. Court of appeals for the sixth circuit. His new book, his first book, is titled the peoples Justice Clarence thomas and the constant fictional stories that define him. Judge departure, thanks for joining us. John thank you for having me. So lets start out with why you decided to write about justice in particular. There are several members of the court that espouse originalism and theyre jurists, prudence. Why Justice Thomas . John, i originally trying to just in originalism. So my goal was to write in excess possible interesting originalism book is in is you know as an author is someone who writes a lot you often throw out your first draft and what i discover in that in drafting i kept coming back to justice. I thought his brand of originalism called the original public, meaning originalism, was one where he consistently his entire career laid out what i was an original a purely vision of the constant tution and the laws that govern us. And so in doing that, i thought this was an interesting way to tell the is through one justice his eyes and whatever the other i discovered is that hes not an originalist, but hes a someone who has a black nationalist background that shines through in his jurisprudence and someone that deeply about people and those things really it fascinating and interesting in the study and hopefully interesting to read. You know what, Justice Thomas grew up poor. I thought we might just talk about his background a little bit before we get into the substance of your book. You write that quote, people think dirt poor is a figure of speech, but for Justice Thomas, it was a reality. The floor of the chanty. He was born in hard packed dirt. And as you also write, he would leave that life and ultimately be raised by his grandparents. I wonder if you can talk a little about your perspective of on how thomass upbringing may have affected who he is, who he is as a justice, and maybe even his jurisprudence. I think i mean, youve put your finger so many important things there because he was born to a single mother. His father deserted them, as he himself says. And his mom really tried her best to raise them, but she was making 10 a week and just couldnt afford to raise him and his brother as much as she wanted to. And so she passed them off at young age to their grandfather. And their grandfather really was important to the formative years of Justice Thomas. So much, so that he calls himself my grandfather son, as you know, and his grandfather had maybe impacted him in multiple ways. As i note in the book. The first is theres nothing you cant account if you dont put your mind to it. Hed say, when Justice Thomas or, his brother was, would complain. Hed say, old man is dead. You know how i know i helped bury him. The second thing he always and enforced is that even though he himself had a third grade education and struggled to read the bible or the newspaper and would once he could successfully complete packet passage of the bible, for example he would memorize it. He thought that in Frederick Douglass words and words that Justice Thomas later uses, education means emancipation. And so he saved penny. He had, even though he was Oil Delivery Man to Justice Thomas, a young Justice Thomas and his brother to Catholic Schools, which he did from really third grade through 12th grade and believed that was so important, so much so that he never let the boys a day of school. And he said if you are acting, dad or you are dead, i will take you to school for three days to make sure that you actually are. Thats how important he thought school was. And the third thing he taught justice, and im quoting Justice Thomas as i recount in the book, is not to be enslaved to the views that others will him, but to find his own views through study and education. And those three things, i think, come back throughout Justice Thomass career and shine through. Your honor, i have to say, you know, this is a book about the law, and its a book about Justice Thomass, and its about originalism, but its exceedingly readable for nonlawyers and everybody that ive seen interview you has raised this point, and i think its you know, you did a really good job writing on this and the reason why i think its so readable for nonlawyers is that you focus on the people involved in these cases. You know, as a reporter myself, we try to focus on the people, too, because that makes it interesting for our readers. Can you just talk a little bit about your approach to writing generally . Yeah. So john, candidly, you write much better than we often do. And i think that we get trapped in the law. I often tell my law clerks in lost or you learn to talk and write like a lawyer for three years. Im going to teach to write and talk like a human again. And what i mean by that, its joking. But i was a trial lawyer originally, and then i was a trial judge. And during that time as a trial, you had to take some concept and complex concept im sorry and explain them laypeople and. I always did my best to do so. And as a trial judge, you really should write opinions, not for the lawyers, not for the bar but for the losing side. And i always tried to accomplish that. My obligation as a trial judge was to explain to the losing side why you won or a case. One thing i noticed as you go up in the court system, meaning as i advanced to the court of appeals, we often make the error, and i do so myself and i regret it. In hindsight of forgetting that the caption represents real people. Why . Because we with other judges, amazing colleagues, we also interact with the lawyers. But we dont like on the trial court with the litigants. Again and one thing i saw in Justice Thomass jurisprudence is you really strive not to forget there were real people in front of him. And as you note in the book the the individuals that struggle some of the hardest circumstances, imagine and bring these cases in some ways are the real heroes of the book. And Justice Thomas is just the protagonist of originalism and the book hopefully demonstrates how originalism often benefits those. We dont think it would. Yeah, that leads into my next question. I one of the things that was very interesting to me is that instead of simply relying on the record, which you could have done, i mean, its pretty clear you did some original reporting here. You did. Its clear. Did interviews with the plaintiffs. Theres a lot of interesting behind the scenes stuff with some the advocates involved. These cases tell me a little bit about why decided to do that instead of just looking at record and tell me a little bit about what you learned from those conversations and experiences. Yeah, i learned. Theres some really amazing people know as judges, we so rarely get to interact with the people that bring the litigation right. And as i mentioned in the trial judge you did, but it was through the prism of the courtroom where as when i had the opportunity generally to interview the individuals and, really the privilege of interviewing these individuals, i got the human side. It was able it helped me better capture the human side that you cant capture a cold record. And so what i mean by that is i would often read the record of the trial. I would Read Everything i could get my hands on, including articles written about the case, the case itself, the opinion itself. But i really wanted to capture what people were feeling, you know, for lack of a better way of describing it, taste, sense and smell. And i try to convey that to the reader. For example, if i can just pick one. I interviewed angel raiche and another woman kathy mckee, two women that left an imprint on me in a way that i couldnt imagined. Angel, in talking to her about the struggles with her health care and just getting to understand how much she had gone through. And then cathy, coming from herself to become a star and both of their are recounted in the book. But think just talking to them in a press meeting, the struggles really gave me a sense of how to write that chapter in a way that could convey what they were feeling, as well as what was on in the court system. So before we dig into a few of the cases, lets talk a little bit about originalism. I think most know Justice Thomas and i suspect that most americans dont really know what originalism is, how how about we start out with a broad question. Can you just define it for us. Yeah. The way i defined it in the book and i think its easiest to define and then we can get into the details is if you like is originalists that the American People not nine unelected judges are the source of the law that governs through the constitution and statutes enacted by elected representatives and so whats the judges role . A judges role is to determine what the words of those documents meant when they were enacted. And then, importantly, to imply apply them to present day cases in front of. And as i say in the book, its nothing more, nothing less. And the surprising thing about original is when youre an originalist, youre committed to applying the law equally to everyone. Sometimes that means the less sympathetic party wins and you dont necessarily like that. But as Justice Scalia said if you always pick your results, youre being a polity and not a judge and you cant always like your results. But what i found and what i believe is originalism honors the will of the people. And in doing so it more often favor ordinary people and it in its honest it disproves in my mind the critics. In other words, the critics say that originalism favors the corporation over the consumer, the strong over the weak, the government over individual, the rich, over the poor and i actually think the application of the original meaning proves the opposite is true. And thats really the thesis of the book. Judge amy puts you on the spot for a minute and and talk about some more of that criticism so that you can explain. I think, you know, one of the questions i have that comes a lot in cases when i cover at the Supreme Court is, you know, what happens when the meaning original meaning of the words is unclear where do we go from there . How would you how would you address that . I should just have different originalists, different approaches to that. I actually think that john is one of the hardest questions for originalism is what to do when meaning runs out. And so randy barnett, a professor georgetown law, has written extensively this others have written about it. In fact, i myself wrote a law review, the yale law journal talking about it. But at its core, if the meaning runs out, Justice Scalia, for example, believe firmly that that is when you would leave it to the American People to decide. And it doesnt mean they have to amend the constitution to make it clear what scalia often said is that id rather leave it to nine people randomly chosen from the phone book than the nine people in this building to decide the pressing issues of today. So what do i mean . When i say it doesnt mean the constitution has to be amended. It means that you can go talk to your neighbor, pass a local ordinance, pass a law, or pass a federal law. One of our greatest federal laws is title seven that protects all of us from discrimination that isnt in the constitution and thats not the equal protection clause. Rather, that is Something Congress passed and signed into law and that we spend more time in the system in dealing with than we do the constitution itself. Let me throw one other criticism that comes up a lot, the left, and that is that originally ssm seems to favor conservative outcomes, often. How do you respond to that . Yeah, i think the only way you can say that is by cherry picking the cases and defining. I dont like the labels and liberal or left or right. As you know, john, from covering the court, 90 , maybe 95 of the decisions. For example, in court are 3 to 0, as we all know, just from looking at the last term, while a few cases are pointed to, i think i saw a statistic and you should correct me if im wrong where it was only 9 of the cases that were were decided 6 to 3 in the way that its often reported it should be 6 to 3. And there were many cases decided with what ill call or what the media calls strange bedfellows, meaning people that dont the public would not perceive ordinary lining up of. And i dont blame the media for covering cases theyre often the most interesting. In other words, its not the medias fault i actually think its our fault in doing a better job of talking to the public directly, even though, as you know, john, i dont love it, but i think we have an obligation both to write more clearly and, make our opinions more accessible. Chief Justice Roberts once said, you know, i never put down a brief and wish it was longer. I think, could take that advice to heart and make sure our opinions get to the point our shorter and more accessible. So let me ask you one more on originalism, and then i promise well get to some of the cases, because its really stuff. I wonder, thomas, presumably has many more years on the court if he chooses. I could also potentially see him retiring. If a republican president is elected, who knows what will happen . I wonder who you think if and when Justice Thomas leaves the bench, who sort of the next justices who will take up the mantle of originalism . You know, i think we all agree that the court has become a textualist court like even some of the justices, the left have sort of embraced that idea. But i think that maybe thats necessarily the case. I certainly on the left with originalism and there may be some divisions within the conservative wing. I know you dont like monikers, but within the six republican appointed justices, about originalism as well. So i wonder who else on the court do you think has embraced this idea of originalism . I think in some way they at least seven of the justices is including Justice Thomas, have and that may surprise you, but Justice Kagan herself has said that she is in some ways embraced textualism and originalism. I think justice jackson, to her has embraced historical use and has been willing to debate others on history. And so i wouldnt limit it. Limited to left, right, conservative to liberal or republican and democrat. I dislike all of those labels, as you can imagine. And i know you do. Youre never going to come up with a label that a judge is going to like because we like think of ourselves as individuals. And i think that parts important. Its hard to answer that question. And thats why i think Justice Thomass originalism is so in many ways is because he really, in a sense, captures what brutus, the antifederalists at the time of the founding, worried about the judges. Wouldnt adhere to the original public, meaning and he has tried his best to do so in the purest form possible. And who will grab that mantle on the court . Currently, i couldnt predict, but i can tell you there are many justices that respect. The original and respect the history. And as you said, they might different approaches to it. But i still think we all in some sense do so. And even Justice Sotomayor, i shouldnt left her out. I think shes a very thoughtful jurist who often will engage on the history as well. So lets talk a little bit about a few of the cases, because i think it might be easier for viewers to understand what this book is all about. If we kind of walk what youre doing each you look at 12 cases each. Each chapter is a case where. You talk about sort of the background of the case and the parties. The story, the case. And then you talk about the argument and how the case turned out at the Supreme Court and then with a specific eye toward. Justice thomas, i wonder if you could talk about how you define these. How did you decide which cases that you were going to highlight in book . Yeah. So as a judge, i think we all appreciate that when we write for more than one meaning, right . A majority opinion, we try to form a consensus. In other words, the writing is not purely our own because theres a back and forth in my mind a very healthy back and forth amongst judges, justices, in reaching consensus and reaching a majority and making sure that the majority opinion reflects the opinions of the people involved. The people that sign on. So one thing i really look for is where Justice Thomas wrote for himself. Others may have joined his opinion, although often they didnt. And so where he wrote for himself. I thought you could capture his true voice. And that was my goal. Youll notice in the book, all 12 chapters involve roles in individual writing by Justice Thomas himself. So lets talk kilo. Lets get into the first chapter of the book. This is kilo versus city, new london. And its an important taking taking this clause case that anybody who follows the court is familiar with decided in 2005. I think. Tell us a little bit about that case and what we should away from Justice Thomass writings in it. Yeah. So im going to give you the factual background first and then im going to pause and let you ask questions in that way. Dont go on for long. But i think its important, as you as you probably gathered from reading the book, to understand and appreciate the factual background. Suzette kilo was who was a little down on her luck. She was getting separated from her husband. She was looking for a place to live. She was a paramedic by trade and she found she wanted a view of the water that was her dream her whole life is to have a porch where she could go out and sit after a hard days work and look and gaze at the water. And she found a place in new london, connecticut, in a blue collar neighborhood. It was a really rundown house. So much, so that the Real Estate Agent was embarrassed to sell it to her. But she that this was the house of her dreams and she bought it. She knew fix it. She would have to put in her own blood, sweat and tears because she didnt have the money to do so. But she also wanted to get the money to make the house perfect. And so she enrolled in and took correspondence courses as a nurse and eventually became a nurse and was a nurse and a paramedic and saved her money and put every dime into the house, making it absolutely perfect. It was so perfect. She painted it odessa pink, and after she was done, this was one of her favorite colors. It actually turned beautiful and she even her name on the house called it the kilo house. Wow. Wow. This was going on in what didnt know was a storm was brewing the city of new london was seeking to bring in a corporation and they found a partner in the Pfizer Corporation and the Pfizer Corporation to come in and partner with the city of new london to re to kind of clean up and then move into old mill site. But they didnt just that site what they also wanted was a large amount property where they could put a health club, upscale condos, some nice upscale restaurants and shopping. And that was suzette keillors blue collar neighborhood. And so they asked the city told the city of new london that in order for them to come in, they would need that neighborhood transformed into this Type Community the way the city proposed in doing it was using a process called Eminent Domain, which says a government can take your property for public use with just compensation. What means is widening the road or putting in sidewalks as Justice Thomas explains, those are the of public uses. Originally something where the public would use the property. Of course suzette kelo and her neighbors, the dairies who lived there so long, their family have been there 100 years. They love the community so much that when one of their kids got married, they put a down payment on the whole house in the community. So there a whole family could be there with these neighbors and. Suzette kilo heard about this. They wanted to fight it because they didnt believe was for the public use. So the court ultimately sided with the city in this case. Tell me a little bit that ruling then Justice Thomass dissent to understand the majoritys ruling. I think you have to understand a case that Justice Thomas as well, i mean, called burman. So burman is from the 1950s in the district of columbia. And ill be quick on the facts here, but dc wanted to take some area called blighted and replace it with apartment buildings and condos and restaurants and other things and Supreme Court said that was okay because it was for a public purpose notice. The change in words they went from use to public purpose and displaced a large of residents. As a result to take this property. What Justice Thomas points out dissent is and hes the only one who writes for himself here. Justice oconnor writes the principle dissent. Its a54 case. Justice oconnor, justice rehnquist, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joins the principal dissent. But then he writes his own dissent and he points out a number of things first, Justice Thomas is the one justice that goes back to the original meaning. Why is he the only one in not Justice Scalia well, the institute for justice who litigated case did not believe they could get five votes to go back to the original, meaning. They argued that a corporate purpose meaning pfizers was not a public purpose. They lost that argument because the majority, they should defer to the legislators, others as to how what is a public purpose at Justice Scalia asked a really question that i think Justice Thomas dissent really captures. He asked, if you take from the poor and give to the rich because they pay higher taxes, would that be a public purpose . And the citys lawyer said. Yes. Justice scalia, you can tell, was puzzled. So we asked the question again, you mean you can take from a give to be if b pays higher . Again, the citys lawyer down and said yes. Justice thomas then is in his dissent runs with this he accepts. I combed the amicus briefs the one amicus brief that stood out and asked for the court to return to the original meaning was the brief by the acp. And its a very brief and it points out how Eminent Domain is often by cities and others to prey on poor and minority communities. And that was the naacp spirit belief. Justice thomas then cites statistics, other quotes, some really abhorrent that were that government officials. Ill leave it to your viewers to read them. I dont want to reproduce them here, but really awful things people said. But he points out that in berman, 97 of the people that were displayed were black. He also points out that when we get away from the original meaning, often the poor and the less fortunate, those cant take advantage of the levers government. They are the one that lose. And so he believed that they should return to the terms public use those are actually provided for in the constitution itself. And he says things like is a suspiciously agreeable thing to the Pfizer Corporation. His dissent he points out how and im quoting him something gone seriously awry when the government cant search your house without cause, but they can take it away. So he says, safe in your house, but safe from the government taking your house. And he i mean, is dissent really worth reading in itself . But i the chapter captures all that as well as the really what would call statistics, how often this is used to prey on poor and minority communities. Thats a great retelling of the chapter. And its a it is a really interesting story. I learned a lot. Ive read the case before, learned a lot, still. This chapter of your book, one of the things you got at was is interesting to me. And i wanted to ask a judge who embraces originalism, this case in particular think as i understand the majority opinion, was talking a lot about to the legislative branch in this case the city council and as i understand the majority opinion, it frequently is sort of returning to this idea of, well, well let the elected officials decide what public use means. And it made me wonder, there is a tension sometimes originalism and the idea of judicial restraint and how you reconcile those to those two goals. Yeah. So that thats another really interesting question to me. Judges an obligation when as you said earlier, meaning runs out to leave it to the other branches as to solve the problems of today. But they dont all have that. In other words, this restraint labels arent appropriate when the constitution specifically to something bennie is a judges obligation as chief Justice Marshall long ago said to announce what the what the constitution mission says and enforce it. Nothing more, nothing less. And so here the government is only allowed to take your property for public use, is the words of the constitution. And we defer. It would be. And thomas talks about this in his dissent. It would be really odd if we deferred to the government as what was probable cause, we never do so. And why would we defer to them to whats a public use . The constitu ation specifically requires them to comply with those provision. And its our job to enforce that. If courts dont, no one will. What do you the impact of kelo has been . You know, i point out in at the end of the chapter that as a result the institute for justice and passed a number of laws in five states protecting individual wills from this type of thing happening luckily but theres still some states where they havent and theres states including connecticut itself, as i understand, that hasnt passed vigorous law to protect individuals. And as Justice Thomas noted, constitution was supposed to do that the things so your viewers know is pfizer did come in and to to create what they believed was their wonder drug viagra in new london. But eight years later they left and so it now over ten years ago they left the city new london and that the field itself where the house where susette cool is house is now a barren field and i went there and took a picture of it and reproduced it in the book so the the reader could see that field and see where house one stood and theres nothing there today. Hmm. Its amazing. You know, i want to turn to zalman in a minute, but before i do, Justice Thomas was in dissent. And kelo, as we discussed. And by my count, he was in dissent in nine out of the dozen that you highlight. What does that say about Justice Thomas or what do you think it says about the court . You know, i think what it says about Justice Thomas is he took these words to heart and hes always he believe that his job is very well to interpret the original of the constitution. And hell do it as one chapter in title, even when he has to stand alone. He mind standing alone if he thinks its right. He thinks its important to give that voice and provide voice on the court and. You know, different justices have different of stare decisis. We dont have get into the weeds of that. But Justice Thomass is the constitution is supreme. And he will always, in his revisit precis precedent that he thinks is really wrong to use a simple term and others have Higher Standards in revisiting precedent. And so we obviously as judges operate against a backdrop of precedent that on the court, for good reason, are willing to revisit. But Justice Thomas is always willing to revisit that. And what i was trying to do in book, if you go back to the original question, you asked is i was trying to capture what an originalist would look like in todays america. And i think Justice Thomas the best way to do that i found in that means he ends up in dissent. Lets talk about one in which Justice Thomas was in the majority. Zelman is a fascinating case. I think its the Second Chapter of your book. You have not a personal to it per se, but you did up in toledo just a couple of hours west of where this story takes place in cleveland. Tell us about zelman. Yeah. I mean zelman was so much fun for that reason because i was growing up at the time. All of this was going on. I remember george voinovich. George voinovich was a local kid from cleveland to the Public Schools, became a success or mayor, turned the city around in so many ways, ran for, became governor. But he knew one thing was failing. And that was the Public School system in cleveland. So much so that included quotes from different news articles i found where theyd say things like societys going to hell and, the cleveland schools are going with it, and the problem with the cleveland schools, between 14 and 25 buildings were beyond so much so that kids were complaining they didnt soap, they didnt have toilet paper, they werent learning. I mean, 9 were passing the ninth grade proficiency test, if i remember correctly. Its recounted in the book and george wanted to create a solution. He turned to bill batchelder, who was the leader of the assembly, the time bill and partner. And it was a bipartisan bill. Patrick sweeney, who was a democrat leading that ranking democrat from, cleveland, partnered with bill batchelder and they partner with some amazing figures in cleveland. I recount the stories, including fanny lewis, maybe one of my favorite people in the whole book. This woman also grew up in the south, like Justice Thomas. She came and criticized city council. She lived in cleveland. She eventually runs for city council from the highest crime ward and gets to everyone in her ward. So much that people would say shes the safest person in cleveland because if you mess with fannie lewis, shell call your mama because she knew everyone. And fannie was someone championed the Public Schools, a Public School product herself, but believed firmly that she wasnt going to leave kids behind. And they all partnered together along with the Catholic Schools to put together this the in the first inkind kind Voucher Program. And this case the Voucher Program ultimately gets challenged. You can read the chapter or it goes through the challenges to the in the ohio courts and then ultimately ends up in the us Supreme Court and talk a little bit about, you know, where it goes from there and, how thomas connects this issue to originalism. Yeah. So Justice Thomas zelman one thing thats important, chapters and three two is about vouchers, the name of the chapter words justice uses this in his own opinion, education means emancipation. Chapter three is about affirmative action and. I think its important to characterize Justice Thomass views here of constitution. He believes that affirmative action is an unconstitutional bandaid on a much bigger problem, which is this failing schools. Schools often fail our poor and minority children. And he doesnt only believe, obviously, minorities are impacted by this, but throughout the country and communities, children are often left behind and. He uses the words in his opinion, quotes Frederick Douglass often throughout a lot of these opinions, and he quotes Frederick Douglass here education means emancipation. And he he believes that misconstruing. So what happens just really quick . The Court Upholds a Voucher Program where you can use vouchers for community schools, magnet schools, private schools and and other religious schools. And thats the hook that the union others challenge it on is believe that using it for Catholic Schools and schools violates establishment clause just. Thomas points out in a number of ways in a writing how it would contorting the establishment clause say a Parents Choice is governed by that in really simple terms. And what i mean by that is the voucher was such that the money the voucher went to the parents to use as they saw fit. And one other thing i should mention is, they could also choose to get a voucher not send their kids out of Public Schools, but use it for tutoring. So the program was aimed to really the Educational Opportunity cities for cleveland kids and give their parent a say and in fact they created a twitter page for the book. Its called the peoples justice. If you put it in twitter in the backdrop is the cleveland parents. If the Supreme Court who overwhelmingly supported the program and Justice Thomas really gets into the details of whats going on how the schools have traditionally failed these people how thats the created problem in Higher Education and. We shouldnt put an unconstitutional bandaid a much bigger problem. Rather, we should fix the bigger problem. And one way to do it is vouchers. And we should not restrict the Parents Choice in doing so. Judge know im curious, you were mentioning the establishment clause. Of course came up as part of that case and you know this case that case is over and the cases that you write about here, of course, have been decided. But some of these are still live. Certainly the establishment clause and education is still very much an issue. It just came up this term. And i wonder how. Think about that. I know that judges are always very cautious about what they want to say. If a case could come up in their court. I certainly the American Public really sees this confirmation time in the senate. You know the justices and article three judges generally are very hesitant to say anything. How did you navigate with this book . I dont think you crossed a line, but how do you feel about it. How did you figure out how to write about these issues . Passionately, i think. But without tipping your hand for a case that, could could come up in your court. Yeah, i think its really important that. When i got youll notice this john in the facts sections i often recounted within notes. So you can see my sources. The facts were when got to the Legal Section, one thing i often did, i quoted or summarized without any editorial comments, because i do think its important that we as Lower Court Judges and even justices ourselves approach cases with an open mind. One thing that i think is important in the American Public and maybe all us dont appreciate is we are bound by the arguments the parties make. And so we talk about principles like forfeiture, or there are often things that come up. This is another reason Justice Thomas may find himself in dissent and some may sign on to the majority, may wonder how does that happen . And what i wish the public understood, theyre on thomass side. Why majority did it their way, or vice versa is that often there by the arguments of the litigants and we too. So one thing thats really important that as judges we understand and appreciate that and let litigants control their case or controversy that is article three, in my mind, requires us to do in many ways is allow the litigants to control what goes on. We as judges have to remain bound by that. So when i got to the Legal Section in the book, i tried not to recount in an editorial fashion what was going on, but rather to tell use there words. I often quote Justice Thomas quote the majority or summarize straight from the opinion itself. The cases you highlight cover a pretty wide range of time. I think zuckerman was the first and maybe early 2000 and then you also have a really interesting case its a denial shirt that came from 2021 i wondered if you noticed any change in Justice Thomass jurisprudence or approach over that time. And maybe another way to put the question is, is there anything if you had had a little more time, is anything any case from this term that just wrapped up that you would have loved to included maybe in a follow book . You know, i think grutter was Chapter Three its the case that students for fair admission overturn you you really cant appreciate what he did students for fair admissions meaning thomas is separate writing without looking at grutter looking all the way back to when he first came on the court and championing. Hes been a champion of historically black colleges for a long even in students for fair admission, he recounts a remarkable that historically black have had for black america. I think its his way of response to the critiques of what he views as he calls them the cognizant both in the et vouchers chapter. How they really dont want poor i dont want strong words and i dont think thats fair even to put in Justice Thomass mouth they want everyone to succeed. I think everyone america wants everyone to succeed. I think we shouldnt assume the bad faith, people that think that theres a different to success. But i think what he says, i he grew up in the segregated south. He appreciates and respects historically black colleges and points out remarkable amount of success that people have had from those colleges. I would love. So this is a long winded answer of all those cases together. I would love to write a chapter on the historically black College Cases and maybe together and justice view of those schools because it just keeps coming through, in his jurisprudence, in a case called missouri versus jenkins, he says it always it never ceases to amaze me that people assume that anything thats predominantly black is inferior. Hes always really offended when when you think that or say, it seems to me, and it shines through in his jurisprudence. So, judge, let me put you on the hot seat, a question or two. As you know, this book is coming out at a time when the Supreme Court is under an immense amount of scrutiny including Justice Thomas for the activities justices outside of the court and question about ethics in your conclusion you write about Justice Thomas you note that he has like to spend time with regular you know he we know that he he he and his wife do a lot of rv camping. You write that quote, it makes sense that a justice who would rather spend his time in walmart parking than at cocktail parties is an originalist. How do we square that with this of Justice Thomas that has emerged i guess over the past several weeks in stories dealing with private jets and exclusive resorts around the world. Yeah as you noted, that came out after the was published or at least around time, someone asked me john, did you know this was coming out and write the book in response . And my answer was, if i could, that i would give up my day job if i produce books that quickly and a writer, you know, i dont have john grisham like talents where i can amazing books in a short amount time but there is so id say three things to answer that one is Justice Breyer said sat next to him for 28 years when these allegations came out. He said hes a person of integrity. Ive never seen him do anything underhanded, never heard him say anything underhand. The second thing i would say is Justice Sotomayor also, as i quote my book, says, hes a man, cares deeply about people and the institution. And why do those matter . Why does that second point matter . Because as i recount in the beginning he cares. Homeless people who befriends homeless who befriends people in the rv parking lots. But he also befriends all of the people meets even his critics who meet him, becomes friends with him. So one story recently came out how he was a member of the Horatio Alger association. I admit my ignorance i had not and im embarrassed to have not heard of that. But i read recounting of it that have benefited something. Like 31000 to 35000 underprivileged kids with, college or which academic scholars. That should be no surprise. The Justice Thomas is a member of an associate person like that. In fact, id ask, why are we all . Id love to be a member of an Association Like that that benefits on your kids. He himself was one of those kids. I am sure he befriended everyone there, whether its the kids or the people on the board. And i the stories about harlan crowe in a mad it doesnt surprise me that hes made friends with people like harlan crowe ive never met mr. But it just doesnt surprise me that he has met people. Whoever he meets he becomes friends with and be friends them as to the disclosure things i would point a couple of things. One is that i think this, interestingly enough, was brought up. I recently learned in 2011, 2012, you know better than me. I dont know the specific, but i know it was referred to the Financial Disclosure committee and said Justice Thomas did nothing wrong. Same exact allegations that are coming up now so that that too is interesting to me but i dont the exact details of the differences of whats going on now other than to say that i think its referred to the Financial Disclosure committee. So they too will pass on that. Again taking this away from Justice Thomas for a minute maybe thinking about a little more broadly. I was curious as i was thinking about this, you know, i the journalists believe that federal judges, like all public officials, should be held accountable to the public. But i also think that most of us understand the idea that the federal was specifically designed not to be responsive to politics. And so i wonder, youre not elected in your honor, obviously, by design, but i wonder how you think about accountability for the federal judiciary and how we square that with the other two branches. Its clear how that accountability takes hold. Its not as clear, i think, for federal judges. What what do you think about that. Yeah, i think its a really hard question. I think its a great question and because i think you want to strike a balance, what you want is federal judges be insulated from politics as noted. And lifetime tenure lets us do so so we can read the law and often write protect the little guy against the government. The things that originalism. I believe councils that the courts do and not be subject to political or other recourse. At the same time, we internally have an obligation and i think the court chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan have talked this, that they internally, each other accountable. They have an ethics code internally where hold each other accountable. I think if you look over time, the has worked the checks and balances within the system itself has worked. We have not been perfect by any stretch of the imagination in holding each other. But weve tried tried our best and were Getting Better it and i think no one is at least i heard a better solution than what got now. And i do firmly believe that the nine people on the court, as ive said before publicly, people of integrity, i know almost all of them and i really have think if the public knew them like i knew them, they would truly believe theyre all people of integrity that are just trying their best to get the result and they do hold each other accountable internally. Its just something you see outside. Judge, you have a fascinating background. We could spend the whole program just talking about you. I think i learned recently that neither of your parents were lawyers, and so i wanted to ask how you got into the because i think its kind of a fun story. But maybe in addition to that when you realized that the law was something that you were going to make a career out of. Yeah so its interesting because as you said my dad came here he was dirt poor, very much like Justice Thomas poorer, if you can imagine, raised by a single mother the same way his dad at on sadly passed away when he was two years old at a difficult time my both my parents are from india he was raised there mom. He was the one child his mom could afford to save up for a one way ticket. Gave a one way ticket to america and a 5 bill and told him to make something of himself. He really did. When my sister or i would complain growing up, hed say, this is the greatest country in the world. If you can accomplish it here, cant accomplish it anywhere, just like Justice Thomass grandfather, the old man cant story. My dad would not accept any kind of whining or complaining and expected us to do our best. But as everyone knows, at least it has immigrants. As parents, there are some kind crown jewel professions, one of them is the medical field. My sister is the crown jewel in the family. Shes a doctor and my parents were thrilled with that when i decided to go to law school, was in college trying to figure out what to i had become. I went to school to fulfill kind of my parent, my parents dream of becoming a businessperson went to the business school, became enamored with philosophy at Boston College and took up a bunch of philosophy courses. And obviously law was a natural follow that the logic and the pursuit. When i called my dad and told him i was going to law school here, he said, why would you go to school . To work an hourly job. Other words, that was his perception of law school was all about so for all those out there who are thinking about it, i encourage you to do it. Even if that is the remark you get from your parents. Because sometimes if if it really is your passion, its important you pursue it. And it really became a passion of mine. I really loved being a trial lawyer and the opportunity become a trial lawyer was selling to me and being able to what i believed is vindicate wrongs. This country has given me so much and i thought it was the least i could do to give it back. You know, this the Supreme Court reversed the sixth circuit in a case involving a deaf student who sued his school over a subpar education. I believe you were the majority writer in that, if im remembering correctly. On the other hand, they essentially upheld reasoning by declining to grant a case of a man who, created a parody website of his police department. That was a case that most will remember because of the brief by the onion, the satirical newspaper. I wonder what its like for you as an Appeals Court judge when one of your opinions goes up to the Supreme Court . Is that nerve wracking it enjoyable in some way . Do you read deeply the briefs . Do you listen to argument . What is that . Are you too busy dealing with whats the docket in front of you . What is that like for when your cases go up . Yeah, i try. Believe it. Or not, to pay too much attention to it. Think its important that the court do their job and we do ours and its what i Pay Attention to is whatever announce. In other words, i dont Pay Attention. The briefs i dont Pay Attention to the argument, but i pay a lot of attention to the i like to understand and appreciate where they think i got it wrong and where they think i got it right. Denying cert doesnt mean, by the way, just because deny cert doesnt mean they think got it right. And its important. Lower court judges not reading too much into that and be willing to revisit our own views we light later i believe we got it wrong and so i think those things really guide me. One make sure you read their opinions and understand where you think youve got it right and where you think you got it wrong. Where they think you got it right. Where they think you got it wrong. And second, do your day job to the best of your ability. I understand you never spoke to Justice Thomas during the writing of this book. Why is that did you did you send him a copy . Do you hope to to speak with him about it . I did. Ultimate send him a copy about i think two weeks, you know, maybe a week after it came out, someone reminded me that he might not have seen it. I didnt talk to him because i thought it important that i try to capture his voice without. I think we have a subjective view in other words, i have my own view of own voice, but it would be its at least for me, its nice when others tell me what they think my voice is. Because then can understand if im actually capturing what im trying to capture or somethings coming out of my opinions. Its unintended. For example, i dont care. Just ill be very blunt. I dont about offending corporations or. The government, in my opinions but i want to be very careful not to offend individuals if that makes sense, especially the losing party. The losing party is lost and you want to write for and hopefully explain it to them in a dispatch unit way such that theyre not going to agree with you, but hopefully they can understand the logic of your opinion. And i think thats really important in your opinion, thats my goal i think we all have goals with what we do with our opinions. Some were very clear. Justice thomas i would agree that he has a strong originalist voice. I didnt want to ask him and say, i discovered you also have strong what i would call black nationalist voice in the way of Frederick Douglass, thomas sowell, some Martin Luther king, and even some malcolm x. And i didnt want to ask that. I wanted to put it down and have it be my own independent kind of review of his opinions and same thing about the people. The title peoples justice comes not only because hes honoring the will of the people when he honors the words of the law. But because of often he cares about notes for the very people in case. And im curious if he intends to do that or its just a product of his own work or its something hes doing without thinking about. And i didnt get to ask him those. But yes, i hope to someday ask him all those questions. I hope get that chance to judge to parts been a great pleasure speaking with id encourage listeners to pick up a copy of the book no matter what you think about Justice Thomas or originalism the peoples justice think has something to say for both supporters. And critics of of this line of thought and its told in a really gripping, engaging way. Thank you, judge pa, for your work on this book and for being here. Thank you very much having me, john. I really appreciate it