Clyburn Backs Abdul El-Sayed After Apology for Synagogue Comment
Left 0%
Center 0%
Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
On Sunday, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told NBC's Meet the Press that supporting Clarence Thomas at his 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings "was a mistake." Clyburn had then called Thomas "a personal and professional friend" and cited their work together when Thomas chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982 to 1990, saying he had expected Thomas's background—raised by his grandfather in Pin Point, Georgia—to instruct him to uphold civil-rights precedents including Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that racial segregation in public schools was illegal. Asked by host Kristen Welker whether he stood by that support, Clyburn said he "had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences." In the same interview he said he would support expanding the Court from nine justices to 13, a proposal former Vice President Kamala Harris made in July, but that if Democrats retake the House in November their first priority should be making the country "accessible and affordable," not court expansion or impeaching Donald Trump.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Clyburn's 1991 support is told in left-leaning coverage as backing a civil-rights friend, with no mention that he already treated Thomas as a conservative, so Sunday's regret reads as if the conservatism itself was the surprise. Right-leaning coverage includes that earlier caveat, which turns the recantation into a complaint about how far a known conservative later went. The friendship and civil-rights hopes appear in the Guardian without that label. Only Fox News records Clyburn calling Thomas a friend "in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy."
The same justice is an "extremist, hard-right" figure in left-leaning coverage and a "prominent conservative justice" in right-leaning coverage.
Why did Clyburn expect a justice he already called a conservative Republican to treat Brown as locked in?
Bottom line
The Guardian left out that Clyburn already called Thomas a conservative Republican in 1991; Fox News is the write-up that still prints that line.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- In 1991 Clyburn called Thomas a personal and professional friend in spite of a conservative Republican philosophy
- Thomas said he declined political mandates imposed because of skin color
- Clyburn said thirteen is a pretty good number for the Court
- Clyburn said a Democratic House's first job should not be court expansion or impeaching Trump
- Clyburn cited a 2024 ruling that college affirmative action is unconstitutional
- Thomas's later years on the bench described as mired in allegations of corruption
The Left View
The Guardian frames Clyburn's recantation as recognition that Thomas "abandoned his principles to become an extremist, hard-right member" of a Court that has delivered "stunning legal reversals," including the overturning of federal abortion protections and the end of affirmative action in higher education. It highlights Clyburn's charge that Thomas has shown "very little sensitivity" to his grandfather's upbringing and, as the paper puts it, "turned his back on civil rights," notably in the 2024 decision holding race-based college admissions unconstitutional, and notes that Thomas's later years have been "mired in allegations of corruption." Clyburn's description of Thomas going "from an angry leftist, to a very angry rightist," and his endorsement of a 13-justice "baker's dozen" who would follow the Constitution's "underpinnings," are presented as part of a Democratic midterm rallying cry to enlarge the Court.
The Right View
Fox News places the remarks against Democrats' increasing support for "court-packing" and term limits, underscoring that Clyburn once backed Thomas "in spite of" a "conservative Republican philosophy" but now calls him a "very angry rightist." The report juxtaposes the interview with Thomas's recent comments to Sen. Ted Cruz, in which Thomas rejected skin-color "requirements" and "mandates" on how he should think—"only two things I have to do: stay Black and die"—and said he "declined that invitation" to a "deterministic view." Cruz replied on X that Clyburn "has a political base to answer to" and that Thomas's supposed "mistake" was "refusing to treat precedent as more sacred than the Constitution."
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is Clyburn's firsthand reversal: a colleague who once vouched for Thomas now says the justice failed to let shared background and EEOC experience "instruct him" to uphold Brown-era civil-rights precedents, a failure the Guardian ties to votes ending college affirmative action and federal abortion protections. The right's strongest argument is Thomas's and Cruz's: Clyburn's regret treats biography as a political obligation Thomas refused—he "declined that invitation"—and Cruz casts putting the Constitution above precedent as why Thomas is "such a great Justice," not a betrayal. The central unresolved tension is whether those 1991 expectations were a fair measure of fidelity to civil rights, or an identity-based demand that originalists say the Constitution does not impose.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.