Juan Williams calls Justice Clarence Thomas' place in history tragic. His argument rests on two sweeping claims: that Thomas is at the heart of a historic decline in public trust in the Supreme Court, and that he has damaged trust in Black conservatives as a source of ideas about race. Those are serious accusations. They deserve more than confident assertion. They deserve evidence, careful reasoning and the same respect for individual judgment that Williams should expect for himself.

Thomas is one of the most respected, trusted and consistent members of the court. His majority opinions and dissents are essential reading because they reveal a justice who takes the Constitution seriously and explains his reasoning with unusual clarity. A reader may disagree with his conclusions. But disagreement does not establish that his service is tragic or that he has betrayed anyone.

Williams' criticism repeatedly makes Thomas' race central to the verdict. He describes Thomas as the most powerful Black Republican in national politics, then judges his work by what it supposedly means for Black conservatives and racial debate. That is racial essentialism, and it is a form of racism. It assumes that a Black justice carries a particular obligation to think, vote or speak in a way that satisfies others. It treats his identity as a political assignment.

Thomas should be judged, as every justice should, on the merit of his reasoning and his fidelity to the Constitution, not by his race or gender. The Constitution does not require Black justices to represent a single political outlook. Nor does it make a justice's legitimacy depend on whether commentators approve of the consequences of his jurisprudence. Thomas is an individual with his own intellect, convictions and experience. He is not a stand-in for every Black American, every conservative or every person who has confronted racial discrimination.

The claim that Thomas is responsible for declining public trust in the court also demands scrutiny. Public confidence is shaped by many forces: the court's decisions, political campaigns against it, the behavior of elected officials, the way legal disputes are covered, and the public's broader distrust of institutions. To place Thomas "at the heart" of that decline is not an explanation. It is a conclusion that needs to be demonstrated.

And if the charge is that Thomas has damaged Black conservatives as a source of ideas, Williams must explain why a disagreement over ideas becomes an injury to a group. Black Americans are not a monolith. They hold varied beliefs about government, race, religion, law and personal responsibility. Treating one Black conservative's views as a threat to the credibility of all Black conservatives repeats the very assumption that people should be evaluated through racial categories.

Thomas' critics are free to challenge his opinions. They can argue that a particular ruling misreads the Constitution, overlooks precedent or reaches the wrong result. That is how serious debate works. But criticism becomes something else when it suggests that a Black justice's independent judgment is a betrayal of his race, or that his influence is tragic because it does not advance a preferred political project.

Williams' commentary also leaves too little room for the possibility that Thomas' jurisprudence reflects principle rather than racial defiance. Thomas has long argued that the Constitution's guarantees belong to every American and should not be administered according to racial classifications. People may dispute that approach or its application. They should engage the argument itself. Reducing it to a failure of racial solidarity avoids the hard work of addressing what Thomas actually says.

There is an irony here. Williams appears to condemn Thomas for undermining trust in Black conservatives, yet his own framing risks implying that Black conservatives earn trust only when they conform to an approved position. That standard does not honor Black intellectual life. It narrows it. Respect for Black Americans includes respecting their right to disagree with one another without being cast as inauthentic or harmful to their race.

Thomas' tenure will be assessed by history. That assessment should consider his opinions, his legal philosophy and his impact on constitutional law. It should not begin with the assumption that a Black justice who reaches conclusions outside the political mainstream has somehow failed his identity.

A justice is not required to provide symbolic reassurance. He is required to decide cases. Williams may find Thomas' conclusions wrong or troubling. But he should make that case on legal and constitutional grounds. Thomas' record merits rigorous examination and more than a verdict written in advance.

Armstrong Williams is manager/sole owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast owner of the year. To find out more about him and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Ian Hutchinson at Unsplash