Clarence Thomas

I rise to the politically incorrect task of defending Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. “Bookmark” (Opinion, Nov. 13) featured the Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson book, “Strange Justice,” and highlighted their disappointment that Thomas fails to show that special empathy that a black man should bring to the high court. They cited Thomas’ dissent in a case involving the beating by two guards, in front of their supervisor, of a shackled prisoner. Mayer and Abramson say that Thomas did not consider the beating to be cruel and unusual punishment and, therefore, was constitutional in Thomas’ opinion.

Justice Thomas did not say that the prisoner beating was constitutional! Rather, Thomas considered the beating to be wholly improper and thought that the victim could have collected dollar damages, that administrative remedies were available and that the victim could have successfully argued denial of due process of law. Thomas’ dissent did not accept the prisoner’s interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment because, in Thomas’ view, that clause is limited to the penalties imposed by the courts (not those imposed by misconduct by guards acting outside their authority). The court did not order the beating. Thus, the illegal beating was not society’s punishment.

Mayer and Abramson are senior writers for the Wall Street Journal. They spent two years researching and writing the book. They should have learned to locate and read Supreme Court opinions, especially if they wanted to cite cases to carry the heavy burden of demonstrating that a justice of the Supreme Court has a nature that can be described as strange or even cruel.

GARY COLBOTH

Professor, Public Adminstration

Cal State Dominguez Hills