Judge amul thapar, who sits the u. S. Court of appeals for the sixth circuit. His new book, his first book, is titled the peoples Justice Clarence thomas and the constant fictional stories that define him. Judge departure, thanks for joining us. John thank you for having me. So lets start out with why you decided to write about justice in particular. There are several members of the court that espouse originalism and theyre jurists, prudence. Why Justice Thomas . John, i originally trying to just in originalism. So my goal was to write in excess possible interesting originalism book is in is you know as an author is someone who writes a lot you often throw out your first draft and what i discover in that in drafting i kept coming back to justice. I thought his brand of originalism called the original public, meaning originalism, was one where he consistently his entire career laid out what i was an original a purely vision of the constant tution and the laws that govern us. And so in doing that, i thought this was an interesting way to tell the is through one justice his eyes and whatever the other i discovered is that hes not an originalist, but hes a someone who has a black nationalist background that shines through in his jurisprudence and someone that deeply about people and those things really it fascinating and interesting in the study and hopefully interesting to read. You know what, Justice Thomas grew up poor. I thought we might just talk about his background a little bit before we get into the substance of your book. You write that quote, people think dirt poor is a figure of speech, but for Justice Thomas, it was a reality. The floor of the chanty. He was born in hard packed dirt. And as you also write, he would leave that life and ultimately be raised by his grandparents. I wonder if you can talk a little about your perspective of on how thomass upbringing may have affected who he is, who he is as a justice, and maybe even his jurisprudence. I think i mean, youve put your finger so many important things there because he was born to a single mother. His father deserted them, as he himself says. And his mom really tried her best to raise them, but she was making 10 a week and just couldnt afford to raise him and his brother as much as she wanted to. And so she passed them off at young age to their grandfather. And their grandfather really was important to the formative years of Justice Thomas. So much, so that he calls himself my grandfather son, as you know, and his grandfather had maybe impacted him in multiple ways. As i note in the book. The first is theres nothing you cant account if you dont put your mind to it. Hed say, when Justice Thomas or, his brother was, would complain. Hed say, old man is dead. You know how i know i helped bury him. The second thing he always and enforced is that even though he himself had a third grade education and struggled to read the bible or the newspaper and would once he could successfully complete packet passage of the bible, for example he would memorize it. He thought that in Frederick Douglass words and words that Justice Thomas later uses, education means emancipation. And so he saved penny. He had, even though he was Oil Delivery Man to Justice Thomas, a young Justice Thomas and his brother to Catholic Schools, which he did from really third grade through 12th grade and believed that was so important, so much so that he never let the boys a day of school. And he said if you are acting, dad or you are dead, i will take you to school for three days to make sure that you actually are. Thats how important he thought school was. And the third thing he taught justice, and im quoting Justice Thomas as i recount in the book, is not to be enslaved to the views that others will him, but to find his own views through study and education. And those three things, i think, come back throughout Justice Thomass career and shine through. Your honor, i have to say, you know, this is a book about the law, and its a book about Justice Thomass, and its about originalism, but its exceedingly readable for nonlawyers and everybody that ive seen interview you has raised this point, and i think its you know, you did a really good job writing on this and the reason why i think its so readable for nonlawyers is that you focus on the people involved in these cases. You know, as a reporter myself, we try to focus on the people, too, because that makes it interesting for our readers. Can you just talk a little bit about your approach to writing generally . Yeah. So john, candidly, you write much better than we often do. And i think that we get trapped in the law. I often tell my law clerks in lost or you learn to talk and write like a lawyer for three years. Im going to teach to write and talk like a human again. And what i mean by that, its joking. But i was a trial lawyer originally, and then i was a trial judge. And during that time as a trial, you had to take some concept and complex concept im sorry and explain them laypeople and. I always did my best to do so. And as a trial judge, you really should write opinions, not for the lawyers, not for the bar but for the losing side. And i always tried to accomplish that. My obligation as a trial judge was to explain to the losing side why you won or a case. One thing i noticed as you go up in the court system, meaning as i advanced to the court of appeals, we often make the error, and i do so myself and i regret it. In hindsight of forgetting that the caption represents real people. Why . Because we with other judges, amazing colleagues, we also interact with the lawyers. But we dont like on the trial court with the litigants. Again and one thing i saw in Justice Thomass jurisprudence is you really strive not to forget there were real people in front of him. And as you note in the book the the individuals that struggle some of the hardest circumstances, imagine and bring these cases in some ways are the real heroes of the book. And Justice Thomas is just the protagonist of originalism and the book hopefully demonstrates how originalism often benefits those. We dont think it would. Yeah, that leads into my next question. I one of the things that was very interesting to me is that instead of simply relying on the record, which you could have done, i mean, its pretty clear you did some original reporting here. You did. Its clear. Did interviews with the plaintiffs. Theres a lot of interesting behind the scenes stuff with some the advocates involved. These cases tell me a little bit about why decided to do that instead of just looking at record and tell me a little bit about what you learned from those conversations and experiences. Yeah, i learned. Theres some really amazing people know as judges, we so rarely get to interact with the people that bring the litigation right. And as i mentioned in the trial judge you did, but it was through the prism of the courtroom where as when i had the opportunity generally to interview the individuals and, really the privilege of interviewing these individuals, i got the human side. It was able it helped me better capture the human side that you cant capture a cold record. And so what i mean by that is i would often read the record of the trial. I would Read Everything i could get my hands on, including articles written about the case, the case itself, the opinion itself. But i really wanted to capture what people were feeling, you know, for lack of a better way of describing it, taste, sense and smell. And i try to convey that to the reader. For example, if i can just pick one. I interviewed angel raiche and another woman kathy mckee, two women that left an imprint on me in a way that i couldnt imagined. Angel, in talking to her about the struggles with her health care and just getting to understand how much she had gone through. And then cathy, coming from herself to become a star and both of their are recounted in the book. But think just talking to them in a press meeting, the struggles really gave me a sense of how to write that chapter in a way that could convey what they were feeling, as well as what was on in the court system. So before we dig into a few of the cases, lets talk a little bit about originalism. I think most know Justice Thomas and i suspect that most americans dont really know what originalism is, how how about we start out with a broad question. Can you just define it for us. Yeah. The way i defined it in the book and i think its easiest to define and then we can get into the details is if you like is originalists that the American People not nine unelected judges are the source of the law that governs through the constitution and statutes enacted by elected representatives and so whats the judges role . A judges role is to determine what the words of those documents meant when they were enacted. And then, importantly, to imply apply them to present day cases in front of. And as i say in the book, its nothing more, nothing less. And the surprising thing about original is when youre an originalist, youre committed to applying the law equally to everyone. Sometimes that means the less sympathetic party wins and you dont necessarily like that. But as Justice Scalia said if you always pick your results, youre being a polity and not a judge and you cant always like your results. But what i found and what i believe is originalism honors the will of the people. And in doing so it more often favor ordinary people and it in its honest it disproves in my mind the critics. In other words, the critics say that originalism favors the corporation over the consumer, the strong over the weak, the government over individual, the rich, over the poor and i actually think the application of the original meaning proves the opposite is true. And thats really the thesis of the book. Judge amy puts you on the spot for a minute and and talk about some more of that criticism so that you can explain. I think, you know, one of the questions i have that comes a lot in cases when i cover at the Supreme Court is, you know, what happens when the meaning original meaning of the words is unclear where do we go from there . How would you how would you address that . I should just have different originalists, different approaches to that. I actually think that john is one of the hardest questions for originalism is what to do when meaning runs out. And so randy barnett, a professor georgetown law, has written extensively this others have written about it. In fact, i myself wrote a law review, the yale law journal talking about it. But at its core, if the meaning runs out, Justice Scalia, for example, believe firmly that that is when you would leave it to the American People to decide. And it doesnt mean they have to amend the constitution to make it clear what scalia often said is that id rather leave it to nine people randomly chosen from the phone book than the nine people in this building to decide the pressing issues of today. So what do i mean . When i say it doesnt mean the constitution has to be amended. It means that you can go talk to your neighbor, pass a local ordinance, pass a law, or pass a federal law. One of our greatest federal laws is title seven that protects all of us from discrimination that isnt in the constitution and thats not the equal protection clause. Rather, that is Something Congress passed and signed into law and that we spend more time in the system in dealing with than we do the constitution itself. Let me throw one other criticism that comes up a lot, the left, and that is that originally ssm seems to favor conservative outcomes, often. How do you respond to that . Yeah, i think the only way you can say that is by cherry picking the cases and defining. I dont like the labels and liberal or left or right. As you know, john, from covering the court, 90 , maybe 95 of the decisions. For example, in court are 3 to 0, as we all know, just from looking at the last term, while a few cases are pointed to, i think i saw a statistic and you should correct me if im wrong where it was only 9 of the cases that were were decided 6 to 3 in the way that its often reported it should be 6 to 3. And there were many cases decided with what ill call or what the media calls strange bedfellows, meaning people that dont the public would not perceive ordinary lining up of. And i dont blame the media for covering cases theyre often the most interesting. In other words, its not the medias fault i actually think its our fault in doing a better job of talking to the public directly, even though, as you know, john, i dont love it, but i think we have an obligation both to write more clearly and, make our opinions more accessible. Chief Justice Roberts once said, you know, i never put down a brief and wish it was longer. I think, could take that advice to heart and make sure our opinions get to the point our shorter and more accessible. So let me ask you one more on originalism, and then i promise well get to some of the cases, because its really stuff. I wonder, thomas, presumably has many more years on the court if he chooses. I could also potentially see him retiring. If a republican president is elected, who knows what will happen . I wonder who you think if and when Justice Thomas leaves the bench, who sort of the next justices who will take up the mantle of originalism . You know, i think we all agree that the court has become a textualist court like even some of the justices, the left have sort of embraced that idea. But i think that maybe thats necessarily the case. I certainly on the left with originalism and there may be some divisions within the conservative wing. I know you dont like monikers, but within the six republican appointed justices, about originalism as well. So i wonder who else on the court do you think has embraced this idea of originalism . I think in some way they at least seven of the justices is including Justice Thomas, have and that may surprise you, but Justice Kagan herself has said that she is in some ways embraced textualism and originalism. I think justice jackson, to her has embraced historical use and has been willing to debate others on history. And so i wouldnt limit it. Limited to left, right, conservative to liberal or republican and democrat. I dislike all of those labels, as you can imagine. And i know you do. Youre never going to come up with a label that a judge is going to like because we like think of ourselves as individuals. And i think that parts important. Its hard to answer that question. And thats why i think Justice Thomass originalism is so in many ways is because he really, in a sense, captures what brutus, the antifederalists at the time of the founding, worried about the judges. Wouldnt adhere to the original public, meaning and he has tried his best to do so in the purest form possible. And who will grab that mantle on the court . Currently, i couldnt predict, but i can tell you there are many justices that respect. The original and respect the history. And as you said, they might different approaches to it. But i still think we all in some sense do so. And even Justice Sotomayor, i shouldnt left her out. I think shes a very thoughtful jurist who often will engage on the history as well. So lets talk a little bit about a few of the cases, because i think it might be easier for viewers to understand what this book is all about. If we kind of walk what youre doing each you look at 12 cases each. Each chapter is a case where. You talk about sort of the background of the case and the parties. The story, the case. And then you talk about the argument and how the case turned out at the Supreme Court and then with a specific eye toward. Justice thomas, i wonder if you could talk about how you define these. How did you decide which cases that you were going to highlight in book . Yeah. So as a judge, i think we all appreciate that when we write for more than one meaning, right . A majority opinion, we try to form a consensus. In other words, the writing is not purely our own because theres a back and forth in my mind a very healthy back and forth amongst judges, justices, in reaching consensus and reaching a majority and making sure that the majority opinion reflects the opinions of the people involved. The people that sign on. So one thing i really look for is where Justice Thomas wrote for himself. Others may have joined his opinion, although often they didnt. And so where he wrote for himself. I thought you could capture his true voice. And that was my goal. Youll notice in the book, all 12 chapters involve roles in individual writing by Justice Thomas himself. So lets talk kilo. Lets get into the first chapter of the book. This is kilo versus city, new london. And its an important taking taking this clause case that anybody who follows the court is familiar with decided in 2005. I think. Tell us a little bit about that case and what we should away from Justice Thomass writings in it. Yeah. So im going to give you the factual background first and then im going to pause and let you ask questions in that way. Dont go on for long. But i think its important, as you as you probably gathered from reading the book, to understand and appreciate the factual background. Suzette kilo was who was a little down on her luck. She was getting separated from her husband. She was looking for a place to live. She was a paramedic by trade and she found she wanted a view of the water that was her dream her whole life is to have a porch where she could go out and sit after a hard days work and look and gaze at the water. And she found a place in new london, connecticut, in a blue collar neighborhood. It was a really rundown house. So much, so that the Real Estate Agent was embarrassed to sell it to her. But she that this was the house of her dreams and she bought it. She knew fix it. She