Suicide Jack and The Supremes

In his assessment of the Supreme Court ruling upholding Oregon’s assisted suicide law, Jack Lessenberry wrongly insults Clarence Thomas by calling him a Scalia “Mini-Me” and an intellectual embarrassment.

In Thomas’ dissent, he states, “I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure.” His position is consistent with his ruling in Raich v. Gonzalez where he dissented from the majority that ruled against states allowing medicinal marijuana. Thomas states he is perplexed by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter’s inconsistencies between the Raich and Oregon cases. Then, he criticizes his colleagues for failing to take a stand for federalism last year in Raich when larger constitutional issues were at stake. As a final slap at his fellow justices, he rejects Oregon by using Raich as the precedent.

Thomas should be applauded for recognizing how the Supreme Court has incorrectly applied the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allowing Congress to run roughshod over state and individual rights. Unfortunately, Lessenberry falls victim to the smear campaign waged against Thomas during his confirmation hearings. The slanders that he was an “Uncle Tom” who would “turn back the clock on civil rights” must still ring in Lessenberry’s ears. Rather than surrender to pre-conceived notions and stereotypes about Thomas, Lessenberry should be more cautious before insulting his intelligence.

[Letter to the Editor - Metro Times. Submitted 01/26/2006]