Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas spent a couple days at the University of Kansas law school.  Our dean was one of his first clerks, so Thomas comes back every year or so, and when he does, he often teaches classes and holds forums with students.  On Thursday, the Honorable Justice took over our 1L Lawyering class.

Thomas is ultra-conservative; we all know that.  He went with Bush in Bush v. Gore. He gets accused of being Scalia's puppet, which I think is a little unfair.  They are brothers in ideology, but political ideology simply doesn't enter into a lot of Supreme Court decisions.  Still, for the Lefties among us, many of Thomas' decisions are quite bewildering.  For the more screeching of my liberal friends, Clarence Thomas is THE ENEMY.

I don't like a lot of Thomas' stances, but I have to admit that I like Clarence Thomas the man.  He commands the room with a giant, almost cartoonishly round gut and a deep, booming voice--like Chef from South Park, but more thundering.  He has large, bulging eyes that lock onto you--when the Justice is talking to you, you listen.  Thomas laughs like a fairy tale villian, this giant "WHA HA HA HA!" bellow that seems mocks people's perceptions of him--if you think he's evil, Clarence Thomas is more than willing to let you think it.  Hell, he *encourages* it.  When you ask him a question, he wanders over to you with this stilted, straight-legged waddle, thrusts his gut out, locks on with those eyes, and answers in this thunderous boom that definitely comes from upon high.

Thomas spoke for a half hour about writing legal briefs ("concise and clear!"  "the first draft is a lump of clay"--that kind of thing).  Then the good Justice opened the floor for questions.  Of course, the liberals all wanted to take their shots at him, and I know some of my friends talked a lot of shit before class--but the fact is that you're completely outmatched by the Justice.  Not only is he the smartest person you've ever encountered, he's damn scary.  Clarence Thomas would rip your arms off, beat you with them, and then eat them.  And then do that thunderous gut laugh.

Of course, they're not allowed to talk about pending or possible cases, but that didn't stop somebody (not me) from asking about Colorado Amendment 36--the amendment to divvy Colorado's electoral votes proportionally, giving Kerry four extra votes when he loses CO on election day.  I think it's a shady deal, but it could turn the election to Kerry if he loses Hawaii or New Hampshire.  Anyway, here's a preview of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Kerry over the Colorado amendment, if it passes:

Whiny Liberal KU Law Student (again, not me): "How does the Court determine electoral issues?"  (Subtext:  "How are you going to vote on Bush v. Kerry?"

Justice Clarence Thomas:  "It's really hard to say unless we're faced with a specific case."  ("You know I can't talk about that, jackass.")

WLKULS:  "What sorts of instruments does the Court use--are these entirely Constitutional questions?"  ("C'mon Clarence, we know how you're going to vote, we just want to hear you say it.")

Justice Clarence Thomas:  "Well, look, all I know is that the state legislature is the only body that can determine how electoral voters are elected."  ("Alright, jackass--I'm going to vote to overturn the referendum on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, ok?")

If it makes you feel better, use this article about Justice Thomas' opinion in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, in which the Justice voted to invalidate a congressional statute that required cable stations to scramble "adult entertainment" programs except late at night.  Insert your own Anita Hill-related jokes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment052300 a.html" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment052300 a.html" target="_blank"http://www.nationalreview.com...