Thread by @meghanncuniff

I’m tuned into @OCBarCA’s webinar on SCOTUS’ Clarence Thomas with @BerkeleyLaw Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, and Chemerinsky has some harsh words for the justice. "To say it’s a tribute to a legal giant conveys admiration and praise, and I cannot do that."

Chemerinsky took issue with the title of the program, “Tribute to a Legal Giant.”
"I don’t have anything nice to say about Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court justice," Chemerinsky says.

Chemerinsky says he agreed to the program before he knew who it was about. When he realized it was about Thomas, he suggested @OCBarCA find another speaker. But event organizers told him to speak his mind. So, off he goes. He's really laying out a case against Thomas right now.

Chemerinsky leads by saying Thomas “obtained his current position by lying,” including about Anita Hill. “I will never regard him as a legal giant for that reason.” Also, “he has radical views about the Constitution that will endanger basic, fundamental rights.”

Chemerinsky is of course detailing a bunch of examples. It's quite a tribute, and apparently we've got another 75 minutes of this. Thank you, @OCBarCA! 👀

In response, former Thomas clerk @jennmascott says whether you agree with Justice Thomas’ opinions or not, “he certainly has written quite a bit” and staked out new areas of law, and thus should be considered a legal giant.

Mascott is going over several examples of Thomas' work and says he's "willing to reconsider issues. Have we gotten to the right place in the law?" And he doesn't see courts as being primarily responsible for bringing about policy change.

There’s obviously waaaay more to this discussion, including a lot of substantive talk about Thomas’ specific decisions. But alas, I can’t just tweet the world.

Wrapping up, Chemerinsky says he often disagreed with Justice William Rehnquist, and Rehnquist voted against him on every case Chemerinsky argued before SCOTUS except one, but he still respects him and considers him a legal giant. Not so with Thomas.