What Dem Rep Called Justice Thomas is Despicable

Representative James Clyburn just told the country he wishes he could take back his vote for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Quick Take

Clyburn told NBC’s Meet the Press he no longer stands by his 1991 support for Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation.
He said he never expected Thomas to “rebel” against his own upbringing in Pin Point, Georgia.
Clyburn expected Thomas to uphold Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act.
Thomas has repeatedly said his rulings follow the Constitution as written, not personal background or politics.

A Democrat Renounces His Own Endorsement On Live Television

Clyburn did not mince words. Asked point blank if he stood by his decades-old support for Thomas, he said “Absolutely not” and added, “I will own up to that mistake”. That is not a vague gripe. It is a sitting congressman publicly disowning a vote he cast to help confirm a Supreme Court justice three decades ago.

Back in 1991, Clyburn testified in favor of Thomas as a “good friend” during the confirmation fight. The Senate confirmed Thomas by a narrow 52-48 vote that October. Clyburn’s reversal now recasts that friendly testimony as, in his own words, a mistake he regrets.

The Claim: Thomas Turned His Back On His Roots

Clyburn’s sharpest line was personal, not legal. He said he had “no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences”. He pointed to Thomas’s grandfather and the town of Pin Point, Georgia, saying Thomas showed “very little sensitivity” to that environment. Clyburn also said he expected Thomas to uphold Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act.

That is a serious accusation dressed up as disappointment. It suggests a black man’s judicial philosophy should be judged by his zip code of birth rather than his reading of the Constitution. Conservatives have heard this argument before, and it never ages well. It assumes there is only one legitimate way to think if you grew up poor and black in the segregated South.

Thomas Has Answered This Question For Decades

Thomas has never hidden from questions about his upbringing. He has said segregation shaped his outlook, describing a system where “the government tells you you can’t walk” in certain places. He has also said his first duty in writing opinions is applying the Constitution, which he calls “the people’s Constitution,” not his own preferences.

Yale Law School, hosting Thomas for a 2019 originalism conference, called him “the leading originalist in the country” and noted his keynote discussed his upbringing directly, not as something he hides from but as part of a consistent story. Other interviews show Thomas treating his grandfather, his years of activism, and his faith as one continuous thread leading to his judicial philosophy, not a break from it.

Regret Decades Later Is Not The Same As Proof

Clyburn’s comments came in 2026, thirty-five years after he testified for Thomas. That gap matters. Academic research on the Supreme Court shows nearly every justice since the 1930s has shifted ideologically over time in some direction. Disappointed endorsers second-guessing their own votes decades later is not new. It is a recurring pattern in confirmation politics, not evidence of some personal betrayal unique to Thomas.

Clyburn also used the moment to back expanding the Supreme Court to thirteen seats, a “baker’s dozen,” folding his Thomas regret into a broader push to reshape the Court through Congress rather than through the ballot box or judicial philosophy. That context is worth remembering. A personal grievance about one justice’s rulings is being used to justify a structural change to the entire Court.

Rep James Clyburn regrets voting to confirm Clarence Thomas

Kristen Welker asked James Clyburn if he stands by making the case for Clarence Thomas’s confirmation.

Clyburn: “Absolutely not. You know, I have made mistakes in my life, and that’s one that I made. And I will own up… pic.twitter.com/qKwGVXpQEX

— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) August 31, 2026

Judging Ideas, Not Ancestry

Thomas has spent over three decades explaining his reasoning in written opinions available to anyone who wants to read them. Clyburn is free to disagree with those opinions. But framing disagreement as a racial “rebellion” against one’s own people treats a justice’s independent legal mind as a kind of loyalty test. That standard would never be applied to a white justice who broke from expectations, and it should not be applied here either.