From a review in tomorrow’s New York Times Book Review:
His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia. He is said to dislike light-skinned blacks, yet he is the legal guardian of a biracial child, the son of one of his numerous poor relatives.
“He” is Clarence Thomas. “Yet”, huh? There should be a rhetorical term for this: self-destructive.
You do know this is a hatchet job, right?
From the very first sentence, this reveiw is loaded down with trigger words meant to paint Justice Thomas in a very bad light. No doubt the book does too, but really, the very part you quote would suggest the improbable nature of the author’s point of view. It’s his family! Obviously he loves his family!
Plus, the right to free association, to name just one off the top of my head, would mean anti-miscegenation laws would be unconstitutional to anyone with his political views. Seriously, this is a BAD hatchet job! Can you really imagine somebody being as conflicted as the review suggests and being able to function at all, let alone sitting on the Supreme Court?
“Hatchet job”? Well, the writer is anti-Clarence-Thomas, sure. But the reputation being damaged is the reputation of the person who wrote the review. As you say.