‘You Do Your Job And You Go Cry Alone’: Thomas Rips Media, Defends Supreme Court


OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has become the most recent justice to speak out against the perception of the Supreme Court as a partisan institution.

On Thursday the 74-year-old warned against “destroying our institutions because they don’t give us what we want, when we want it,” as he took aim at the media, Fox News reported.


“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference,” he said to a crowd at the University of Notre Dame. “So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician.”

The justice’s speech came after the Supreme Court declined to step in to stop the new Texas abortion law and Justice Thomas has previously called for the court to abolish the Roe V Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

But Justice Thomas said that not every decision he makes is one that aligns with his personal beliefs.

“You do your job and you go cry alone,” he said. “The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous.”

“When we begin to venture into the legislative or executive branch lanes, those of us, particularly in the federal judiciary with lifetime appointments, are asking for trouble,” he said.

And he said he believes that it has bled into the process of nominating and confirming justices.

“I think that is problematic and hence the craziness during my confirmation was one of the results of that,” he said. He argued that “it was absolutely about abortion — a matter I had not thought deeply about at the time.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently expressed her frustration at the idea that the court is partisan.

While delivering remarks at McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, Barrett said she doesn’t believe the highest court in the land is politically driven and said the nation’s highest court is not filled with “partisan hacks.”


Barrett spoke specifically about the Supreme Court’s decision not to stay a Texas “heartbeat” bill that effectively outlaws abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected.

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks. Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” Barrett said.

“To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner,” Barret said. “I think we need to evaluate what the court is doing on its own terms.”


“The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results and decisions,” Barrett added. “That makes the decision seem results-oriented. It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong, based on whether she liked the results of the decision.”

“And here’s the thing: Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions. But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want,” she added.

Barrett said the justices are “hyper-vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too.”

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer made headlines this month when he discussed a myriad of hot topics surrounding the Court and what the future might hold.

During an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Breyer began by saying he is opposed to the Democrats’ idea of packing the Supreme Court.

“I think, well, people understand to some degree why it’s a good idea what Hamilton thought. And he thought the court should be there because there should be somebody – somebody who says when the other two branches of the government have gone outside the confines of this document,” Breyer said.

“Well, if one party could do it, I guess another party could do it,” he said. “On the surface, it seems to me you start changing all these things around and people will lose trust in the court.”


However, Breyer did say he is open to the idea of term limits instead of the current lifetime appointments.

“I think you could do that. It should be very long-term because you don’t want the judge who’s holding that term to start thinking about his next job. But it would make life easier for me,” Breyer said.

“I don’t intend to die on the court. I don’t think I’ll be there forever,” Breyer added.

Back to top button