Clarence Thomas Has His Own Constitution, by Jeffrey Toobin
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas-has-his-own-constitution?intcid=mod-latestexcerpt:
The truth is that Thomass view of the Constitution is highly idiosyncratic. Indeed, one reason he wrote so many opinions (often solo dissents and concurrences) was that no other Justice, including Scalia, shared his views. Thomas is a great deal more conservative than his colleagues, and arguably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Supreme Court since the nineteen-thirties.
While some Justices are famous for seeking consensus with their colleagues, Thomas seems to go out of his way to find reasons to disagreeoften in the most provocative ways. Take, for example, his solo dissent this year in Foster v. Chatman, in which all the other Justices joined Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,s opinion setting aside a death-penalty verdict in Georgia. Roberts said that records preserved by the prosecutors in that case showed egregious racial discrimination in jury selection. Prosecutors said one juror represents Black, another note said No Black church, and other notes identified black jurors as B#1, B#2, and B#3, as well as notes with N (for no) appearing next to the names of all black prospective jurors. The contents of the prosecutions file plainly belie the States claim that it exercised its strikes in a color-blind manner, Roberts wrote for the Court, adding, the focus on race in the prosecutions file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury. Thomas, alone, was unpersuaded. The prosecutors notes, he wrote, provided no excuse for the Courts reversal of the state courts credibility determinations. (The case reflects a long pattern at the court of Thomas, the only black justice, voting against programs designed to assist African-Americans, and rejecting findings of discrimination against African-Americans.)
The Foster case turned primarily on the facts, but its on constitutional law that Thomas is most isolated. Far more than even Scalia did, Thomas endorses originalismthe belief that the Constitution should be interpreted as its words were understood at the time it was written. By a vote of 53, the Court struck down Texass restrictions on abortion clinics in Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, but neither of the other dissenters (Roberts and Samuel Alito) joined Thomass opinion. Whats most extraordinary about Thomass dissenting opinion in the abortion case is not that he objects to the ruling; as he noted, I remain fundamentally opposed to the Courts abortion jurisprudence. But Thomas also took the opportunity to reject more than a century of the Courts constitutional jurisprudence. He said that, since the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Courts interpretation of the Constitution has become an unworkable morass of special exceptions and arbitrary applications.
The abortion dissent explains why Thomas is so cut off on the Court, even from his fellow-conservatives. He doesnt respect the Courts precedents. He is so convinced of the wisdom of his approach to the law that he rejects practically the whole canon of constitutional law. Its an act of startling self-confidence, but a deeply isolating one as well. Even his ideological allies, who mostly come out the same way on cases, recognize that they must dwell within the world that their colleagues and predecessors created. Thomas, in contrast, has his own constitutional law, which he alone honors and applies.
more . . .
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
― Charles Bukowski
MFM008
(19,823 posts)or go the way of Scalia.
His choice.
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)Justice's law clerks do a large part of the research and drafting of these opinions. Hopefully, employers will be VERY wary of hiring anyone who ever clerked for CT, unless that person resigned in disgust.
In fact, being fired by CT might be a GOOD recommendation.
And yes, he should go. His name NEVER should have been offered for consideration in the first place. That was a callous and calculated decision made by Bush I - one of the MANY reasons why I never liked or admired the man in any way.
Interestingly enough, I began working for the USG at a moderately high level in January 1989 and at least some people I knew thought that it was due to an appointment from Bush I. That made me laugh until I cried. I came in through the regular route, based on having qualifications and experience for the job, and did my share of trench-work before earning my way to a senior-level position. I had actually been offered the position in September 1988, but the security background check took a couple months and then things ran into the holiday season, so it was mutually decided that I begin in January.
Besides, I had been a volunteer for Michael Dukakis in 1988. 1988 was the last time until very recent years that I could actually work on a political campaign in any way because I was "Hatched-out" as the saying goes. I sincerely hope that my phone-banking for HRC this year will not be the kiss of doom for us all! But then I also volunteered in minor local roles for Prez O's 2012 campaign, so perhaps that more recent experience is the marker to go by.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In the overwhelming majority of cases, Thomas agreed with Scalia.
Scalia spouted originalism, but that was phony, IMO. If anyone can find evidence that the writers of the Bill of Rights or those who demanded it as a condition of ratifying the original body of the Constitution, intended the First Amendment to extend to corporations, I'll eat my copy of the Constitution with catsup.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)Response to swag (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
underpants
(182,942 posts)His book "Opening Arguments" about his time on the Walsh special prosecutor team investigating Ollie North is a great read. I never finished "The Nine" but what I read was really good.