Clyburn calls backing Clarence Thomas a mistake

Rep. Jim Clyburn says he was wrong to support Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court in 1991. He said it plainly on Sunday, in an interview that landed while many of us were still stirring our coffee. The South Carolina Democrat told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that his endorsement of Thomas during the confirmation hearings was a mistake he now owns. He also said that if Democrats win back the House, impeaching President Trump should not be their top priority.

Both remarks arrived in the same conversation, and they tug in different directions. One looks backward with regret. The other looks forward with a kind of weary caution. Together, they sketch a party trying to decide what matters most when power is within reach but not yet secured.

Clyburn did not hedge on Thomas. “I have made mistakes in my life, and that’s one that I made, and I will own up to that mistake,” he said. He explained that he had faith Thomas’s background and experiences would shape his judging. He expected support for the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act to hold. Instead, he said, Thomas has moved in a direction Clyburn did not anticipate. “I had no idea that Clarence Thomas would rebel the way he has against his own background and experiences,” he said.

That line carries weight. It is not the usual political reframe. It is an admission that a judgment call, made decades ago with real consequences, did not turn out as hoped. People make those kinds of calls all the time. We back a person, a policy, a plan. We do it with the best information we have. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not. Owning the miss matters, even if it cannot change the outcome.

On impeachment, Clyburn struck a different tone. He did not rule it out. He did not rule it in. “I don’t think that should be our priority if we get into office,” he said. He pointed to bread-and-butter concerns instead: housing, education, energy, health care. His argument was simple. Impeaching the president will not make those things more affordable or accessible.

That stance will not please everyone. Some Democrats want immediate accountability. Others worry that a fight over impeachment could consume time and energy better spent on governing. Clyburn’s position sits between those poles. It leaves the option open while steering the party’s focus toward daily life. For many voters, that is the part they feel most. The price of rent. The cost of a doctor’s visit. The bill for electricity. The hope that school will open doors for their children.

The Thomas remark lands differently. It is personal in a way policy debates rarely are. It asks us to consider how we judge people over time. Thomas has served on the Supreme Court for more than three decades. His rulings have shaped law in ways that still ripple through courts and classrooms. Clyburn’s regret does not change those rulings. It does, however, change how we talk about the choices that put them in place.

There is also the question of what this means for the Court itself. Clyburn has joined other Democrats in calling for expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices. He called that number “a pretty good number” in the same interview. Yet he made clear that court expansion is not the first thing he would push if Democrats retake the House. Affordability comes first. That ordering tells you where he thinks the party’s credibility lives right now.

I found myself pausing on the word “rebel.” It is a strong choice. It suggests a break not just with ideology but with a life story. Thomas grew up in poverty in the South. He has spoken about the struggles of his early years. Clyburn seemed to say that Thomas’s jurisprudence has turned away from the lessons of that story. Whether you agree with that read or not, the feeling behind it is clear. It is disappointment mixed with a kind of bewilderment. How did someone with that background end up here?

The impeachment question raises its own set of tensions. Democrats have been through this before. They know the political costs. They also know the moral weight. Clyburn’s formulation tries to hold both. It says accountability remains possible without making it the opening act. That may calm some nerves. It may frustrate others. It is, at least, honest about the trade-offs.

What stays with me is the quiet courage in admitting error. Politics rewards certainty. It punishes doubt. Yet growth often begins with the second. Clyburn’s remarks do not solve the party’s strategic debates. They do not erase the past. They do, however, model a kind of reflection that feels rare. He looked back, named the miss, and moved on to the work ahead.

For ordinary people, the test will be simple. If Democrats win the House, will they deliver on the things that make life easier? Will housing feel less crushing? Will health care cost less at the counter? Will schools and energy bills stop keeping families up at night? Those are the measures that will matter most. The rest, including the hard questions about impeachment and the Court, will be judged against that baseline.

Clyburn’s comments landed on a Sunday morning, when the news cycle is slower and the kitchen table is still warm. They will echo through the week. Some will cheer them. Some will push back. Both reactions are part of the work. What matters now is whether the party can turn reflection into results that people can feel.