Times Doubts "Angry" Clarence Thomas Can Be Impartial

Clarence Thomas's "anger" over his confirmation means he can't judge ACLU cases objectively - but former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg can?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son," has certainly riled up his enemies in the liberal media.The Times took the trouble to write an editorial Friday, "The Angriest Justice," bashing Thomas for the book's unprofessional display of "bitter grudges" (gee, what could Thomas possibly have to be angry about?) against Anita Hill and the left-wing groups that used unscrupulous tactics to attempt to deny him the Supreme Court nomination in 1991.

"Justice Clarence Thomas's new autobiography dredges up his 16-year-old battle with Anita Hill and fulminates against liberal groups, Democratic senators and others who opposed his nomination. The clash with Ms. Hill has grabbed most of the headlines. But his fulminations deserve more attention. The rage he harbors raises questions about whether he can sit as an impartial judge in many of the cases the Supreme Court hears....The problem with Justice Thomas's book, 'My Grandfather's Son,' is that it nurses bitter grudges and throws brickbats at organizations and people who opposed his nomination and might well appear before the court. Some of his targets, like Senator Joseph Biden and Yale Law School, he mentions by name. Others, like the American Civil Liberties Union, are not attacked as directly, but it is not hard to connect the dots."

Funny, but we don't recall the Times ever questioning liberal Supreme Court justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg " target="_self">Ruth Bader Ginsburg's impartiality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg ">towards the ACLU, although she was chief litigator for the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, served as the groups General Counsel, and argued six cases for the ACLU before the Supreme Court. Or do only conservative justices suffer from personal conflicts of interest?