What Black Rep Called Justice Thomas is Despicable

James Clyburn said he regrets helping Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court, and he framed that regret as a break with Thomas’s own roots.

Story Snapshot

Clyburn disavowed his 1991 support for Thomas’s confirmation on national TV.
He said Thomas “rebelled” against his background and expectations Clyburn once held.
He tied that critique to civil-rights landmarks Clyburn thought Thomas would respect.
Records show Thomas was confirmed in 1991 by a 52–48 Senate vote.

What Clyburn Said And Why It Matters Now

Representative James Clyburn told Meet the Press he no longer stands by his 1991 support for Clarence Thomas. He answered “Absolutely not” when asked if he would still back Thomas today, and called his support a mistake, according to network coverage of the interview. He argued Thomas has “rebelled” against his own background. He said he expected Thomas to honor core civil-rights precedents, like Brown v. Board of Education, but believes Thomas’s opinions have cut the other way.

The charge carried a personal edge. Clyburn linked Thomas’s upbringing in Pin Point, Georgia, and his grandfather’s world, to what he thinks a justice from that place should protect. He said Thomas shows “very little sensitivity” to that experience. That frame turns a judicial dispute into a question about loyalty to one’s roots, which is why the comment drew fire and clicks. It suggests Thomas has not only ruled wrongly, but walked away from the people who shaped him.

The 1991 Promise And The 2026 Break

Clyburn’s about-face lands hard because he was not a bystander in 1991. He testified for Thomas as a friend during the bruising confirmation fight. The Senate confirmed Thomas on October 15, 1991, by a 52–48 vote, sealing a lifetime seat and fixing Clyburn’s support in the historical record. That paper trail is the hinge of today’s argument: Clyburn says the man he backed then is not the justice he sees now. The regret is clear; the proof is his on-camera confession.

Thomas’s method, however, has never been a secret. He says his first duty is to apply the Constitution as the people’s charter, not to reach outcomes he personally prefers. He presents originalism as the only sound way to read the text. He has also described how segregation shaped his outlook, which he treats as part of a continuous arc, not a break from his life story. That record undercuts the idea that he discarded his background; he argues the opposite.

Law, Identity, And The Line Clyburn Crossed

Americans can debate rulings without reducing a justice to where he grew up. Conservative readers will hear Clyburn’s “rebelled against his background” claim as a moral test tied to race, not law. That frame drifts from constitutional argument to identity pressure. It suggests the “right” vote follows a zip code, not the text and history of the Constitution. That runs against equal treatment under law and the promise that judges answer to the Constitution, not to a hometown council.

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

The smart case against any justice points to opinions and doctrine. Clyburn could map decisions he hates to the precedents he cites. He did not do that work on-air, and the sources here do not supply that matrix. That weakens his charge. By contrast, the documentary record is strong on two facts: Clyburn supported Thomas in 1991, and he now calls that support a mistake. Those facts stand. The leap from regret to “rebellion” hangs on rhetoric, not a docket-by-docket analysis.

How This Fits The Big Picture

History shows many justices drift over time, left or right, and back again. Scholars have measured these shifts across decades of votes, which explains why supporters often feel burned years later. That pattern makes Clyburn’s regret legible as part of a wider story, not a unique betrayal. People project hopes onto nominees; long tenures test those hopes. The better fix for disappointment is clearer standards and better vetting, not identity tests that police a justice’s biography.