PERSPECTIVE ON THE SUPREME COURT : Bush May Have Drawn a Wild Card : Thomas’ dedication to individual rights may indicate a streak of independence.

The Bush Administration may have grabbed a tiger by the tail in nominating Judge Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court.

Thomas earned the reputation as a “conservative black Republican” during his much-maligned tenure as chairman of Ronald Reagan’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His adamant opposition to affirmative action and race-based remedies for past discrimination brought the wrath of the civil-rights community down on his head.

But a closer look at Thomas’ background suggests that his “conservatism” is far from settled and that he may become a loose cannon on the court. He appears to be an unpredictable person whose anger may strike in unexpected directions.

Although opposed to affirmative action, Thomas may not be an across-the-board conservative even on the race issue. His hero was his late grandfather Myers Anderson, a committed Democrat and NAACP member who was active in the battle for voting rights in Georgia. Thomas still recalls Anderson’s humiliation when a white woman called him “boy” in front of his family. Indeed, Thomas experienced similar humiliations. “In my own neighborhood, I used to get stopped by the cops,” he has said.

Thomas remains deeply angry about racial injustice and favors strong remedies, including criminal punishment for discriminators and make-whole relief for individual victims.

Apart from his views on affirmative action, Thomas’ political philosophy is unclear and very likely not yet settled. “I have not had time to form an individual, well-thought-out constitutional philosophy,” he said recently. His brief judicial career has not given any clear indication of where he stands on abortion, the death penalty, separation of church and state, free speech, business regulation and other crucial issues.

Even Thomas’ political alignment is somewhat unclear. He is a relatively recent convert to the Republican Party, changing his registration only after he became Sen. John Danforth’s legislative assistant in 1979.

Several articles suggest that the main theme in Thomas’ personal life is alienation. “I’m not used to walking in step with anybody,” he has said. “I don’t fit in with whites, and I don’t fit in with blacks.” Alienated from liberals for years, Thomas also became alienated from fellow conservatives in government, who “actually hid from our advice,” as he put it. “There was a general sense that we (black Reagan officials) were being avoided or circumvented.”

Thomas’ defining trait may be his commitment to the individual. Deeply suspicious of general classifications, he believes that the individual should be protected against group oppression.

This suggests that, although Thomas identifies himself as a conservative, he may be a friend of individual liberty. Perhaps, despite his opposition to affirmative action, Thomas may turn out to be a supporter of freedom of expression and religion, of individual privacy and autonomy, and even of individual victims of racial oppression.

Another implication of Thomas’ alienation is that he is a “fiercely independent thinker,” as George Bush put it. Fierce independence is a trait that will be much needed among the court’s right-wing sharks such as William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, who have such well-defined agendas for the future of American constitutional law.

William O. Douglas wrote that Franklin Roosevelt put a tiger on the court when he appointed Hugo Black. Hopefully, Thomas will be another wildcat who will challenge some aspect of the Rehnquist bloc’s complacent conservatism. At least, Thomas will likely be a wild card who will not swallow the chief justice’s reactionary agenda whole.