Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is a US judge, lawyer, and government official who currently serves as a Judge of the United States Supreme Court Association. Thomas succeeds Thurgood Marshall and a second African American to serve in court.
Thomas grew up in Savannah, Georgia, and was educated at the College of the Holy Cross and at Yale Law School. In 1974, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General in Missouri and then enforced the law there in the private sector. In 1979, he became a legislative assistant to Senator John Danforth (R-MO) and in 1981 was appointed as Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights at the US Department of Education. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Thomas Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In 1990, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to sit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He served in that role for 16 months and on July 1, 1991, was nominated by Bush to fill Marshall's seat in the United States Supreme Court. The confirmation hearing was very bitter and very fierce, centered on allegations that he had harassed lawyer Anita Hill, a subordinate in the Department of Education and then at EEOC. The US Senate finally confirmed Thomas in a 52-48 vote.
Since joining the court, Thomas has taken a textual approach, seeking to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. He also, along with fellow judge Neil Gorsuch, a law advocate of natural law. Thomas is generally seen as the most conservative member in court. Thomas is also known for his practice of almost never speaking during oral arguments.
Video Clarence Thomas
Kehidupan awal
Clarence Thomas was born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, predominantly black community near Savannah founded by liberated people after the American Civil War. He is the second of three children born of M.C. Thomas, an agricultural worker, and Leola Williams, a domestic worker. They were descendants of American slaves, and the family pronounced Gullah as the first language. Thomas's earliest ancestor was a slave named Sandy and Peggy who was born around the end of the 18th century and is owned by Liberty County, Georgia, Josiah Wilson plantation. M.C. leaving his family when Thomas was two years old. Mrs. Thomas works hard but is sometimes paid just a penny per day. He had trouble putting food on the table and had to rely on charity. After the house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother, Myers, were taken to live with maternal grandparents in Savannah, Georgia. Thomas was seven years old when his family moved with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Anderson's wife, Christine (nÃÆ' Â © e Hargrove), in Savannah.
Living with his grandparents, Thomas enjoys amenities such as plumbing and regular meals for the first time in his life. Myers Anderson's grandfather had little formal education, but has built a thriving fuel oil business that also sells ice. Thomas called his grandfather "the greatest man I ever knew." When Thomas was 10 years old, Anderson began taking the family to help on a farm every day from sunrise to sunset. His grandfather believed in hard work and independence; he would advise Thomas to "do not let the sun catch you in bed." Grandpa Thomas also impressed his grandson about the importance of getting a good education.
Thomas was the only black man in his high school in Savannah, where he was a model student. She grew up Catholic. He considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, and became the first black student to attend the Little Seminary St. John Vianney (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope. He also attended Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri. No one in the Thomas family ever attended school. Thomas has said that during his freshman year at the seminary, he is one of only three or four blacks attending school. In a number of interviews, Thomas stated that he left the seminary after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He heard another student say after the shooting, "Good, I hope the bastard is dead." He does not think the church is enough to fight racism.
At the advice of a nun, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. While there, Thomas helped establish the Black Student Union. As soon as he came out after an incident in which black students were punished while the white students went undisciplined for the same offense, and some priests negotiated with black students who protested to reenter school.
Having spoken the language of Gullah since childhood, Thomas realized in college that he still sounded harsh despite having been drilled in grammar at school, and he chose to major in English literature "to conquer the language". At Holy Cross, he is also a member of Alpha Sigma Nu and Purple Key Society. Thomas graduated from the Holy Cross in 1971 with A.B. cum laude in English literature.
Thomas had a series of suspensions from military designs while attending Holy Cross. After graduation, he is classified as 1-A and receives a low lottery number, which signifies he may be obliged to serve in Vietnam. Thomas failed his medical examination, because of the curvature of the spine, and was not recruited. Thomas entered Yale Law School, from which he received a Juris Doctor (JD.) degree in 1974, graduating into his middle class.
Thomas had recalled that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by the law firm he had applied after graduation. He said that prospective employers assume he got it because of an affirmative action policy. (In 1969, Dean Louis Pollak wrote that law schools expanded the quota program for black applicants, with up to 24 years in systems that emphasized the value and score of LSAT.) According to Thomas, he was "asked a pointed question." , without indicating that they are doubting me as smart as my point is shown. "
I unfolded a fifteen-cent sticker from a pack of cigars and taped it to my legal bachelor's frame to remind myself of the mistake I made by going to Yale. I never change my mind about its value.
Maps Clarence Thomas
Influences
In 1975, when Thomas read the Race and Economy by economist Thomas Sowell, he found an intellectual foundation for his philosophy. This book criticizes social reform by governments rather than arguing for individual action to overcome circumstances and difficulties. He was also influenced by Ayn Rand, especially The Fountainhead, and later would need his staff to watch a 1949 film version. Thomas later said that the novelist Richard Wright was the most influential author of his life; Wright's Native Son and Black Boy books capture [d] many of the feelings I have in them so you learn how to press. " Thomas admits to having "some very strong libertarian tendencies".
Careers
Initial career
Thomas was admitted to the Missouri bar on September 13, 1974. From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under State Attorney John Danforth, who met Thomas at Yale Law School. Thomas is the only member of the black Danforth staff. As Assistant Attorney General, Thomas first worked in the criminal justice division of Danforth's office and moved into the division of income and taxation. Retrospectively, Thomas considers the Assistant Attorney General as the best job ever. When Danforth was elected to the US Senate in 1976, Thomas went on to become a lawyer at Monsanto Chemical Company in St. Louis. Louis, Missouri. He moved to Washington, D.C. and returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as Legislative Assistant dealing with energy issues for the Senate Commerce Committee. Both men have the same bond that they have learned to be ordained (albeit in different denominations). Danforth will be instrumental in fighting Thomas for the Supreme Court.
In 1981, he joined the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights at the US Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990, he was Chairman of the US Cooperation Opportunities Commission ("EEOC"). Journalist Evan Thomas marked Thomas as "ambitiously open for higher office" during his tenure at EEOC. As Chairman, he promotes the doctrine of independence, and stops the usual EEOC approach in filing class-action discrimination suits, rather than pursuing individual discrimination. He also asserted in 1984 that black leaders "oversee the destruction of our race" because they are "bitches, bitches, prostitutes" about President Reagan than working with the Reagan administration to reduce teenage pregnancies, unemployment and illiteracy.
Federal judge
On October 30, 1989, Thomas was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to seat in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated by Robert Bork, despite Thomas's early protests that he did not want to be a judge. Thomas got support from other African Americans like former Transport Secretary William Coleman, but said that when meeting White Democrats in the United States Senate, he was "stunned by how easy it is to be an arbitrary white man to accuse a black man of indifferent rights - civil rights. "
The confirmation of Thomas did not happen. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 6, 1990, and received his commission on the same day. He developed a warm relationship for 19 months in federal court, including with federal judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Supreme Court nominations and confirmations
After Justice William Brennan resigned from the Supreme Court in July 1990, Thomas was one of five candidates on President Bush's elected list for Bush's position and favorites out of five. Finally, after consulting with his counsel, Bush decided to postpone Thomas's candidacy, and nominated Judge David Souter from the First Circuit. Judge Thurgood Marshall announced his resignation, and on 1 July 1991, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to succeed him. Marshall is the only African-American judge in court. In announcing his choice, Bush called Thomas "the best nominee of the day."
The US president of that time submitted a list of prospective federal court applicants to the American Bar Association (ABA) for a confidential assessment of their temperament, competence and integrity on a three-tier scale of good quality, qualified or unqualified. However, as Adam Liptak noted from the New York Times, the ABA has historically generally taken a liberal position on divisive issues, and research shows that candidates nominated by Democratic presidents are better at group ranks than those nominated by Republicans. Anticipating that the ABA would judge Thomas worse than they thought fit, the White House and Republican Senators pressed the ABA at least for middle-level rankings, and simultaneously tried to discredit the ABA as partisans. ABA rated Thomas worthy, albeit with one of the lowest support levels for Supreme Court candidates. In the end, the ABA rating ultimately had little impact on Thomas's nomination.
Some public statements versus Thomas foretold the upcoming confirmation battle. Both liberal and Republican interest groups in the White House and Senate are approaching nomination as political campaigns.
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh had earlier warned Bush that replacing Thurgood Marshall, who was widely revered as an icon of civil rights, with candidates not considered to share Marshall's view would make the confirmation process difficult. Civil rights and feminist organizations oppose this appointment in part based on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and the suspicion that Thomas may not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade .
The official Thomas confirmation hearing began on September 10, 1991. Thomas was quiet when answering Senator questions during the appointment process, recalling what had happened to Robert Bork when Bork explained his judicial philosophy during the confirmation hearing four years earlier. Previous writings of Thomas often refer to the theory of natural law; during Thomas's confirmation hearing confined himself to the assertion that he regarded natural law as the "philosophical background" to the Constitution.
Sexual harassment harassment
After the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, the FBI interview with Anita Hill's lawyer leaked and the confirmation hearing reopened. Hill, a black lawyer, had worked for Thomas in the Department of Education and then moved with Thomas to the EEOC. After the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearing. He testified that Thomas had made it a commentary on sexual nature, which he felt as sexual harassment or at least "behavior that does not benefit a person who will be a member of the Court." Hill's testimony includes dreadful details, and some Senators aggressively questioned him.
Thomas denied the allegations, saying:
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult things personally or in a closed environment. It's a circus. This is a national disgrace. And from my point of view, as an American black man, it is a high-tech cessation for the noble blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do on their own, to have different ideas, and that is a message that unless you kowtow for an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be put to death, destroyed, made a caricature by the US Senate committee rather than being hung on a tree.
Hill was the only person who testified at the Senate hearing that there had been unsolicited sexual attempts. Angela Wright, who worked under Thomas at EEOC before dismissing her, decided not to testify, but submitted a written statement stating that Thomas had forced her to date and comment on the anatomy of women. However, he says he does not feel his behavior is intimidating or he feels sexually harassed, although he allows that "some other women may have". Also, Sukari Hardnett, Thomas's former assistant, wrote to the Senate committee that although Thomas did not harass him, "If you are young, black, female and quite attractive, you know very well that you are being examined and auditioned as women."
Another former co-worker testified on Thomas's behalf. Nancy Altman, who shared the office with Thomas in the Department of Education, testified that she heard almost everything Thomas said for two years, and never heard of sexist or offensive comments. Altman was not convinced that Thomas could be involved in Hill's alleged behavior without any of the dozens of women he did by watching him. Senator Alan K. Simpson questioned why Hill met, dined, and talked on the phone with Thomas on various occasions after they no longer worked together.
According to Project Oyez, there is a lack of convincing evidence produced at the Senate hearing. After extensive debates, the Justice Committee divided 7-7 on September 27, sending nominations to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by 52-48 votes on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final vote was: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted against the nomination.
Thomas received his commission and took the two oaths required several days after the Senate election; this process was postponed by the death of Judge Rehnquist's wife, but the delay was reduced at Thomas's request. He indicated that he wanted to work immediately, and an additional reason for reducing the delay was to end further media investigations into Thomas's personal life. The journalists largely stopped such an investigation after Thomas joined the court. Throughout this episode, Thomas defends his right to privacy, refusing to describe any discussion he may have done outside the workplace about his personal life, and promising that he will not allow anyone to investigate his personal life.
Clarence Thomas writes an autobiography that discusses Anita Hill's accusations, and she also writes an autobiography that tells of her experiences in audience. On February 19, 2018, Abramson followed up his 1995 book on Thomas and Anita Hill's hearing with a discussion of new evidence that Thomas had falsely sworn that might be related to the possibility of impeachment. Abramson indicated that his preaching was initiated by an article by journalist Marcia Coyle from 2016 when Abramson declared, "Moved to the post by a Maryland law source who knew Smith (who made the accusation), Marcia Coyle, a highly respected and conscientious person. Great for The National Law Journal, wrote a detailed account of (Moira) Smith's accusation of butt-squeezing, which included corroborative evidence from Smith's roommate at dinner and from her ex-husband, the story, which was denied Thomas, published October 27, 2016 ".
Public perception
Thomas is generally associated with the more conservative side of the Court. Thomas rarely gives media interviews during his time in court. He said in 2007: "One of the reasons I did not do media interviews is, in the past, the media often had their own scenarios." In 2007, Thomas received a $ 1.5 million advance to write his memoir, My Grandfather's Son ; it became a bestseller.
Thomas's biographer, Scott Douglas Gerber, argues that attacks against Thomas from critics such as Jeffrey Toobin have been extraordinary. Gerber states that one of the reasons may be Thomas's race.
There are a number of explanations for this phenomenon. The first is based on race and ethnicity. We should not forget that Thurgood Marshall, the predecessor to Justice Thomas in the Supreme Court, and the first appointed African-American, was also sharply criticized during his appointment and in his early days in court. The fact that Justice Thomas is black undoubtedly plays the same role in the way he is judged, no matter how much we hate to admit it.
Other critics have outlined a separate reason. They aroused the liberals' disappointment that Thomas had left so much of the jurisprudence of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall. An additional cause for harsh criticism of Thomas is probably the inherently explosive nature of allegations of sexual offenses, the suspicion among some that Thomas did not come during the confirmation hearing, and the belief that Thomas has benefited from an affirmative action program as he has criticized as a judge.
Thomas says he prefers non-Ivy League employees, even though he has hired them. The schools where Thomas has hired include Creighton, Rutgers, George Mason, and the University of Utah.
In 2006, Thomas had a 48% favorable rating, 36% unfavorable, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Judicial philosophy
Conservatism and originalism
Thomas is often described as an original, or textualist, and member of the Supreme Court's conservative wing. He is also often described as the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, though others give Scalia the justice of that title. Scalia and Thomas have a similar but not identical legal philosophy, and experts speculate about the extent to which Scalia considers some of Thomas's views to be unreasonable.
Thomas's jurisprudence has also been described similarly to Judge Hugo Black, who "rejects the tendency to make social policies of 'whole cloth'." According to the same commentator, Thomas generally refuses to engage in judicial law making, and rather than view the constitutional role of the courts as the interpretation of the law, not the making of the law.
Aligning voting
Thomas most often chose with Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia early in his tenure at the Supreme Court. On average, from 1994 to 2004, Scalia and Thomas had 87% voting alignment, the highest in court, followed by Ginsburg and Souter (86%). Scalia and Thomas's agreement rate reached its peak in 1996, at 98%. However, in 2004, another pair of judges was observed more closely than Scalia and Thomas.
The conventional wisdom that Thomas's voice follows Antonin Scalia is reflected from Linda Greenhouse's observation that Thomas chose Scalia with 91 percent of the time during October 2006, and with Judge John Paul Stevens the fewest, 36 percent of the time. Jan Crawford insists that to some extent, this also applies in the other direction, that Scalia often joins Thomas, instead of Thomas joining Scalia. The statistics collected annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog show that the number of Greenhouse is methodological-specific, counting the non-spherical cases in which Scalia and Thomas chose to have the same litigation, regardless of whether they got there for the same reason. Goldstein's statistics show that the two agree fully only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of the deal between Scalia and Thomas is not as prominent as those often implied by pieces intended for a lay audience. For example, in the same terms, Souter and Ginsburg voted 81% of the time with the counting method which resulted in a 74% deal between Thomas and Scalia. With metrics yielding 91% Scalia/Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer agree 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito approve 94% of the time.
Crawford writes in his book in the Supreme Court that Thomas's powerful view moves "moderately like Sandra Day O'Connor farther to the left" but often draws votes from Rehnquist and Scalia. Mark Tushnet and Jeffrey Toobin observe that Rehnquist rarely gives Thomas an important majority opinion because the latter view makes it difficult to persuade the majority of judges to join him.
Different opinions
From 1994 to 2004, on average, Thomas was the third most frequently debated person in court, behind Stevens and Scalia. Four other judges disagreed in 2007. Three other judges disagreed in 2006. Another justice did not agree in 2005.
Dekisa stare
Thomas spoke positively of the concept of stare decisis, or standing with a precedent, during his confirmation hearing, stating that "staring at the decisis gives continuity to our system, providing predictions, and in the decision-making process by case, I think it is a very important and critical concept. "However, according to Antonin Scalia, Thomas" does not believe in tense eyes, period. " This assessment is consistent with Thomas's record on the bench: factorization in tenure, Thomas urges to set aside and join in setting aside precedents more frequently than any other justice during the Rehnuis Court.
Also according to Scalia, Thomas is more willing to rule out constitutional cases than he does: "If the lines of constitutional authority are wrong, he will say, let's do it right. I will not do it." Professor of law Michael Gerhardt, however, says that the characterization of Scalia from Thomas may be wrong, given that Thomas has supported leaving a broad spectrum of intact constitutional decisions. Thomas's belief in originalism is strong; He has said, "When faced with a clash of constitutional principles and an unwarranted line of cases completely separate from the text, history, and structure of our founding documents, we need not hesitate to resolve the tensions that support the original meaning of the Constitution." Thomas believes that wrong can and should be canceled, no matter what age it is.
Professor of law Amy Barrett argues that Thomas supports statutory stare decisis. The examples he quoted include Thomas's concurring opinion in Fogerty v. Fantasy , 510 U.S. 517 (1994).
Trading Clause
Thomas consistently supports the narrowing of court interpretations of the Interstate Trade Constitution (often called "Trade Clause") to limit federal power. At the same time, Thomas has broadly interpreted the sovereign state's immunity from lawsuits under the Trade Clause.
In United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison , the court stated that Congress has no power under the Terms of Trade to regulate non-commercial activities. In these cases, Thomas wrote a separate concrete opinion that debated the original meaning of the Trade Clause. Furthermore, in Gonzales v. Raich, the court interprets the Interstate Trade Clause combined with Necessary and Correct Clauses to empower the federal government to arrest, try, and imprison patients using home-grown marijuana for medicine. purpose, even if the activity is legal in that state. Thomas disagrees in Raich, once again debating the original meaning of the Trade Clause.
Thomas and Scalia rejected the idea of ​​the Dormant Commerce Clause, also known as the "Negative Commerce Clause". That's the doctrine of the country's commercial regulation bar even if Congress has not acted on this issue.
In Lopez, Thomas expressed his view that federal regulations of manufacturing or agriculture are unconstitutional; he sees both outside the scope of the Trade Clause. He believes federal legislators have extended the trade clause, while some critics argue that Thomas's position on congressional authority will break most of the federal government's contemporary work. According to Thomas, it is not the court's duty to reform the constitution. Supporters of broad national forces such as Professor Michael Dorf deny that they are trying to reform the constitution. Instead, they argue that they only handle a set of economic facts that do not exist when the constitution is framed.
Executive powers, federalism and federal statutes
Executive strength
Thomas argues that the executive branch has widespread authority under the constitution and federal law. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, he was the only justice who agreed with the Fourth Circuit that the congress had the power to legalize the president's detention of US citizens who were enemy fighters. Thomas gave the federal government a "strong presumption" and said "the legal process requires nothing but the will of the executive in good faith" to justify the imprisonment of Hamdi, a US citizen.
Thomas is also one of three judges who disagree in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , which states that the military commission set up by the Bush administration to prosecute detainees at Guantanamo Bay requires explicit congressional authorization, and declares that the commission is in conflict with the Military Code Uniform Code (UCMJ) and "at least" Article Three of the Convention Geneva. Thomas argues that Hamdan is an illegal fighter and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and he agrees with Judge Scalia that the court "is completely mistaken" in its jurisdiction statement in this case.
Federalism
Federalism is a central part of the constitutional agenda of the Rehnition Court. Thomas consistently voted for results that promote government-state authority, in cases involving restrictions based on federalism on the congressional powers mentioned. According to law professor Ann Althouse, the court has not yet moved to "a broader and more principled version of federalism put forward by Justice Thomas."
In Foucha v. Louisiana , Thomas disagrees with the opinion of the majority that requires the removal of the mental institution of a detained prisoner. The court stated that the Louisiana law violates the Terms of Process Because "it allows a mad assistant to commit to a mental institution until he is able to show that he is harmless to himself and others, even though he has not suffered anything, psychiatric illness." Dissenting, Thomas threw this issue as a matter of federalism. "Eliminating the sane crazy suspicion of a mental institution can create a remarkable sense of policy," he concludes, "but the Process Clause Because it does not require Americans to adapt to federal judge's policy preferences." In United States v. Comstock , Thomas' argues that the release of a former federal prisoner from a civil commitment, again on the basis of federalism. In AS. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , he wrote disagreements that defended the deadline at the federal home and senate candidates as a valid exercise of the state legislative powers.
Federal statute
In 2007, Thomas was the most willing judge to conduct a legal review of federal law, but was among the most likely to invalidate state legislation. According to the editorial of the New York Times, "from 1994 to 2005... Justice Thomas chose to overturn federal law in 34 cases and Justice Scalia at 31, compared to just 15 for Judge Stephen Breyer."
In 2009 Whole Case Austin District Utilities West District no. 1 , Thomas was the only one who disagreed, voted to remove Part Five of the 1965 Select Act. The Fifth Section requires countries with a history of racial voting discrimination - most of the old Southern states - to obtain a Justice Department permit when improving the election procedure. Although the congress had re-enacted Section Five in 2006 for 25 years, Thomas said that the law was no longer needed, indicating that the black-polling rate in the seven Sections of Five stated higher than the national average. Thomas said "the violence, the intimidation and the pretext that prompted Congress to convey Section 5 and this court to uphold it is no longer left." He re-took this position at Shelby County v. Holder , elects the majority and agrees on the grounds that befell Part Five.
Bill of Rights
First Amendment
Among the nine judges, Thomas was the second most likely to enforce a freedom of speech claim (tied with David Souter), in 2002. He has voted in favor of the First Amendment claim in cases involving various issues, including pornography, campaign donations, political leaflets, religious speeches, and commercial speeches.
Thomas has publicized his belief that all limitations on federal campaign contributions are unconstitutional, and should be rejected. Thomas gave a majority vote at Citizens United v. FEC .
Sometimes, however, Thomas disagrees with the free speech complainant. For example, he disagrees in Virginia v. Black , a case that affects parts of Virginia laws that prohibit the burning of the cross. Along with Morse v. Frederick , he argues that the right to free speech of students in public schools is limited. In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, he joined the majority opinion that the Texas decision to deny a request for a Battle Flag Confederate flag license was constitutional.
Thomas wrote the decision at Ashcroft v. ACLU , stating that the Child Online Protection Act may (or may not) be constitutional. The government is ordered to enforce it, pending further proceedings in the lower courts.
Thomas wrote an agreement in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission , 514 U.S. 334 (1995) and the United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000).
Professor of law and former cleric Thomas, John Yoo, said Thomas supports allowing religious groups to participate more in public life. Thomas said that the First Amendment Clause Clause ("Congress will not make laws that respect the formation of religion") "is best understood as a provision of federalism - it protects state enterprises from federal intervention but does not protect individual rights."
At Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow and Cutter v. Wilkinson, Thomas writes that he supports the incorporation of the Free Practice Clause, which he said "clearly protects the rights of individuals." He said that laws that would violate the Establishment Clause may also violate the Free Training Clause.
Thomas says "it does not make sense to include the States Paragraphs" state-of-the-visions "clause by the Fourteenth Amendment. And in Cutter , he writes: "The text and history of the Clause may support the view that the Clause is not incorporated against States precisely because the Clause shielded the establishment state from congressional disturbances."
Second Amendment
Thomas voted with the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), stating that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to possession of firearms.
He agreed with the verdict at McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the right to save and bear weapons applies to state and local governments, but Thomas writes the findings of separate agreements that the right of the individual to bear arms is fundamental as a privilege of American citizenship under the Clause of Privilege or Immunity, not as a fundamental right under the legal process clause. Four judges in plurality opinion specifically reject the merger under the privilege or immunity of the clause, "declin [ing] to disrupt" hold in the Cutting House Case , which, according to plurality, has been held that the clause applies only for federal affairs.
Since 2010, Thomas has strongly disagreed with certiorari denials in the Second Amendment cases which he considers wrongly decided by various Court of Appeals. He will choose to provide certiorari at Friedman v. City Highland Park (2015), which upheld the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, Jackson v. San Francisco (2014)), which triggers a trigger key command similar to that hit in Heller , Peruta v. San Diego County (2016), which upholds the confidentiality of limited permissions hidden in California, and Silvester v. Becerra (2017), which upholds the waiting time for firearm shoppers who have passed the background check and already have firearms. He joins Justice Scalia in the former two, and by Justice Gorsuch at Peruta . Fourth Amendment
In the case of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unwarranted search and seizure, Thomas often prefers police to the defendants. For example, his opinion for the court at Board of Education v. Earls drug testing is upheld for students involved in extracurricular activities, and he writes again for the court at Samson v. California , allowing random searches on parole. He disagreed in the case of Georgia v. Randolph , which prohibits unsecured searches approved by one resident and the other opposes, arguing that the case is controlled by a court ruling in Cooleli v. New Hampshire . In Indianapolis v. Edmond , Thomas describes the existing law of court cases as stating that "the pursuit of constitutional obstacles is permissible if done in accordance with a plan that limits the discretion of officers who dismiss." Although he expressed doubt that the cases were properly decided, he concluded that since the plaintiffs in the bar case did not provide guidance or argued that the previous cases were rejected, he believed that the court should assume validity and rules accordingly. However, he is in the majority at Kyllo v. United States , which argues that the use of thermal imaging technology to investigate suspect homes, without warrants, violates the Fourth Amendment.
In cases involving schools, Thomas has advocated greater respect for doctrine in loco parentis, which he defines as "parents delegate to teachers their authority to discipline and maintain order." Differences in Safford Unified School District v. Redding describes the application of this postulate in the context of the Fourth Amendment. School officials in the Safford case have a reasonable suspicion that 13-year-old Savana Redding illegally distributes prescription drugs only. All judges agree that it is therefore natural for school officials to seek Redding, and the main problem before the court is whether the search is too far away by being a strip search or the like. All judges, except Thomas, concluded that this search violated the Fourth Amendment. The majority need dangerous findings or a reason to believe that drugs are hidden in a student's underpants to justify the strip search. Instead, Thomas said, "It is a mistake for judges to assume responsibility for deciding which school rules are important enough to allow for invasive search and which rules are not" and that "a reasonable suspicion that Redding has infringing drugs from this policy , therefore, justifies an expanded search into which area of ​​the little pill can be hidden. "Thomas said," there is no doubt that parents will have the authority to conduct a search. "
Sixth Amendment
In Doggett v. United States , the defendant has been technically a fugitive since he was indicted in 1980 until his arrest in 1988. The court ruled that a delay between the indictment and the arrest violated Doggett's Sixth Amendment right for a speedy trial, finding that the government had been negligent in chasing after him and that he was not aware of the charges. Thomas disagrees, arguing that the purpose of the Speedy Trial Clause is to prevent "undue and oppressive imprisonment" and "the anxiety and anxiety that accompany public accusations" and that the case does not involve either. He threw the case as, "presenting the question of whether, apart from this core issue, the Speedy Experiment Clause protects the defendant from two additional damages: (1) prejudice against his self-defeating ability caused by the passage of time, and (2) the disruption of his life years after the allegation "Thomas does not agree with the court's decision to, as he sees, answers the first in the affirmative. Thomas writes that rejecting that belief "invites Nation judges to adhere to ad hoc results and results-on the second allegation of government investigation, our constitution does not reflect or tolerate such a role."
In a series of cases starting with Crawford v. Washington was adjudicated in 2004, Thomas has joined Justice Scalia and some liberals in court in reaffirming the importance of the Sixth Change Confrontation Clause, stating the statement of testimony is unacceptable in court unless the witness is unavailable and there are many opportunities for cross-examination ; However, his decision in these cases is not always in harmony with Scalia. In his concurrent opinion in the 2011 case Michigan v. Bryant, for example, Thomas explained that in deciding whether a statement is a testimony, one must consider the formalities of the circumstances in which it is given. Eighth Amendment
Regarding the death penalty, Thomas is one of the dissidents at Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons , which states that the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the application of capital punishment to certain class of persons. In Kansas v. Marsh , his opinion for the courts shows the conviction that the constitution provides for a widespread state in determining the death penalty, provided they remain within the limits of Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia , a 1976 case in which the court has annulled a 1972 ban on capital punishment if states follow procedural guidelines.
In Hudson v. McMillian, a prisoner has been beaten, propped up with cracked lips, broken teeth, broken teeth, cuts and bruises. Although this is not a "serious injury," the court believes, it states that "excessive use of physical force against detainees can be a cruel and unusual punishment even if convicts are not seriously injured." Dissenting, Thomas writes that, in his view, "the use of force that only causes a meaningless loss to a prisoner may be immoral, possibly torture, it may be criminal, and it can even be fixed under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not 'cruel and unusual punishment'.In closing for the contrary, today's Court far exceeds our precedent. "Thomas's voice - in one of his first cases after joining the court - is an early example of his willingness to be the only person who disagrees (Scalia then joins the opinion). Thomas's opinion was criticized by the majority of seven court members, who wrote that, by comparing physical attacks with other prison conditions such as bad jail food, Thomas's opinion ignores "the concept of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and modesty living the Eighth Amendment". According to historian David Garrow, Thomas's dissent at Hudson is a classic call for federal judicial control, reminiscent of the views held by Felix Frankfurter and John M. Harlan II a generation earlier, but editorial criticism rained down on him ". Thomas would then respond to the accusation "that I am in favor of beating a prisoner in that case... Well, someone must be illiterate or full of hatred to reach that conclusion... no honest readings can reach such a conclusion."
In United States v. Bajakajian , Thomas joins a more liberal bloc of the court to write a majority opinion that states unconstitutionally good under the Eighth Amendment. The fine was for failing to declare more than $ 300,000 in a suitcase on an international flight. Under federal law, 18 U.S.C.Ã,§§982 (a) (1), the passenger must lose the entire amount. Thomas noted that the case required a distinction between civil suits and forced fines with the intention of punishing the respondents. He found that the seizure in this case was clearly meant as a punishment at least in part, "highly disproportionate", and was a violation of the Excessive Penalty Clause.
Equal protection and affirmative action
Thomas believes that the same Protective Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial considerations, such as racially based or affirmative action. In Adarand Constructors v. For example, he writes "there is moral [and] constitutional conformity" between laws designed to subdue race and those who distribute benefits on the ground of race to cultivate some current notions of equality The government can not making us equal, it can only recognize, respect and protect us as equal before the law. [The affirmative program] may have been motivated, in part, in good faith it can not provide protection from the principle that under our Constitution the government can not make differences on the ground of race. "
In Gratz v. Bollinger , Thomas said that, in his view, "the use of racial discrimination by states in the acceptance of higher education is categorically prohibited by the Equality Protection Clause." In Parents Involved in Community School v. Seattle School District No. 1, Thomas joins the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, who concludes that "[he] means to stop discrimination on the ground of race is to stop discriminating on the ground of race." Simultaneously, Thomas wrote that "if history we have taught us anything, it has taught us to be wary of the elites who bring racial theory, "and alleges that the difference of opinion brings" commonality "to the arguments of segregationist plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education . In Grutter v. Bollinger , he agreed to quote Judge Harlan Plessy v. Ferguson : "Our constitution is color blind, and does not know or tolerate classes among citizens." In an agreement at Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), he writes that the Missouri District Court "has read our case to support the theory that black students suffer from unspecified psychological disorders of their mental inhibiting segregation and educational development.This approach depends not only on research social science is questionable rather than constitutional principle, but also depends on the assumption of black inferiority. "
Abortion
Thomas argues that the Constitution does not address the issue of abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade . Thomas along with Justice Byron White joined the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist and Judge Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist writes that "[w] e believes Roe is wrongly decided, and it can and should be rejected consistently with our traditional approach to staring in decisis in constitutional cases." Scalia's opinion concluded that the right to get an abortion is not "freedom protected by the United States Constitution." "[T] of the Constitution he did not say anything about it," writes Scalia, "and [] the old tradition of American society has allowed it to be banned legally."
In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the court imposed a state ban on partial birth abortion, concluding that he failed an "undue burden" test set at Casey . Thomas disagrees, writes: "Although a State may allow abortion, it is not in the Constitution that states should should do." He went on to criticize the reasons of the Casey and Stenberg majority: "The majority insistence on the health exception is that the fig leaves hardly masked the hostility to abortion rules by the Casey-hostile State supposedly rejected. "
In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the court rejected the face challenge for federal bans on partial birth abortions. Simultaneously, Thomas asserted that the jurisprudence of court abortion has no basis in the constitution, but that the court has accurately applied that jurisprudence in rejecting the challenge. Thomas added that the court did not decide the question of whether the congress had the power to ban partial birth abortions: "[W] Hether Act is an exercise that Congressional powers allow under the Trade Clause not before the Court [in this case]... the parties have not raised or explained the issue it is beyond the question being asked, and the lower court does not address it. "
Gay Rights
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a page of dissent in which he cited a lawmaker who called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statements "extraordinarily ridiculous." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would choose to repeal the law, since it is not a beneficial use of "law enforcement resources" for police personal sexual behavior. However, Thomas argues that the Constitution does not contain the right to privacy; Therefore, he did not choose to abrogate the law. Thus, Thomas sees the problem as a problem for nations to decide for themselves.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joins a different opinion of Scalia stating that Amendment Two to the Colorado State Constitution does not violate the Protection Clause Equivalent to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. The Colorado amendment prohibits legal, legislative or executive action designed to protect people from discrimination on the basis of "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, behavior, practice or relationships."
Brady Rules
In 2007, John Thompson, convicted of murder by New Orleans District Prosecutor's Office Harry Connick Sr due to evidence of withholding, was awarded a $ 14 million verdict by a federal court jury. The jury found that 18-year-old Thompson behind bars (14 of whom he spent in solitary confinement on the death penalty) was caused by Connick's deliberate failure to train prosecutors on their duty to submit a sideline of evidence. Orleans Parish DA's office appealed and the case, Connick v. Thompson was verbally debated before the US Supreme Court during October 2010. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court canceled a $ 14 million prize in a decision issued on March 29, 2011. The majority opinion, written by Judge Clarence Thomas, interpreted a series of offenses which is admittedly not up to the "similar" pattern of Brady Offenses v. Maryland (1963), and such a pattern is necessary to make Connick responsible for the inability of his employees. A different opinion, read from the table by Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, notes that Connick's office has actually committed a pattern of offenses, failed to reveal blood type evidence, failed to reveal the audio record of witness testimony, failed to reveal the death confession of evidence destruction by prosecutor Gerry Deegan , and failed to disclose eyewitness identification from murderers that did not match Thompson. Ginsburg noted that the office has such a high employee turnover that a young lawyer can advance to a senior supervisory position within four years, so the office offers little training in ongoing developments in criminal proceedings despite a large number of inexperienced lawyers.
Approach to oral arguments
Thomas is famous for his aversion during oral arguments. Beginning when he asked questions during the death penalty case on February 22, 2006, Thomas did not ask any other questions from the bench for more than ten years, finally asking a question on February 29, 2016, about the response to the question of whether people convicted of crimes in the home stairs should be prohibited permanently from possession of firearms. He also had nearly seven years of no speech at all in any context, finally breaking the silence on January 14, 2013, when he was understood to have joked that a law degree from Yale might be evidence of incompetence.
Thomas has provided many reasons for his silence, including self-awareness of how he speaks, a preference for listening to those who argue the case, and difficulty speaking. The habit of speaking and listening to Thomas may also be influenced by his Gullah education, during which his English is relatively rude.
In 2000, he told a group of high school students that "if you wait long enough, someone will ask your question." Though he rarely speaks from the bench, Thomas has admitted that sometimes, during oral arguments, he will give notes to his friend and colleague Judge Stephen Breyer, who then asks questions on behalf of Thomas.
In November 2007, Thomas told an audience at Hillsdale College: "My colleagues have to keep their mouths shut!" He then explained, "I do not think that to judge, and for what we do, all those questions are needed." According to Amber Porter of ABC News, one of the most famous examples of rare examples where Thomas posed a question was in 2002 during an oral argument for Virginia v. Black, when he expressed his concern to Michael Dreeben, who had spoken on behalf of the US Department of Justice, that he "completely understates the symbolism... and the effects of the... burning cross" and his use as a symbol of "the reign of terror "from" 100 years of death and activity in the South by the Knights of Camellia... and Ku Klux Klan ".
Thomas is not the first calm justice. In the 1970s and 1980s, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun were generally silent; However, Thomas's silence stood out in the 1990s when eight other judges were involved in active interrogations. The correspondent of the Supreme Court of the New York Times, Adam Liptak called it "dear" that Thomas did not ask questions, saying that he had "a special legal philosophy and background entirely different from others, justice" the people he questioned in 2001 and 2002 were "mostly good, quick and sharp questions." In contrast, Jeffrey Toobin, writing in The New Yorker, called Thomas' silence a "disgraceful behavior" that "changed from strange to strange to utterly shameful, to himself and to the institution he represents ".
Personal life
In 1971, Thomas married his girlfriend on campus, Kathy Grace Ambush. They have one child, Jamal Adeen. In 1981 they split up and they divorced in 1984. In 1987, Thomas married Virginia Lamp, a lobbyist and aides to Republican Congressman Dick Armey. In 1997, they took his six-year-old nephew, Mark Martin Jr., who lives with his mother in a Savannah public housing estate.
Thomas' second wife remains active in conservative politics, serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, and as founder and president of Liberty Central. In 2011, he resigned from Liberty Central to open a conservative lobbying company, heralding "experience and relationships", meeting newly elected members of the Republican congress and describing himself as "ambassador for a tea party". Also in 2011, 74 Democrats from the House of Representatives wrote that Thomas should resign in cases of the Affordable Care Act, due to "conflict of interest" based on his wife's work.
Thomas returned to the Catholic Church in the mid-1990s. In his autobiography of 2007, he criticized the church for his failure to wrestle with racism in the 1960s during the civil rights movement, saying it was not so "insistent to end racism as it is about ending abortion now". Thomas is one of thirteen Catholic judges - out of a total of 112 judges - in the history of the Supreme Court, and one in five are currently in court.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments