I want a strict constructionist on the SC, not a jurist who is dominating and persuading for conservative principles. I thought the SC wasn't supposed to be a political body?
Kristol is just as bad as liberals who want judges to advocate "liberal principles" from the bench.
Oh, and tell me. What arguments have Clarence Thomas made that have influenced the future of American jurisprudence? He usually just says "me too" when Scalia votes and writes an opinion.
And, if Scalia is such a domineering voice on the court, how come he hasn't been able to swing O'Connor and Kennedy more his way?
He's had 20 years, and they're more independent than ever.
A strict constructionist and an originalist conservative are one in the same. Conservative principles are at the core of our Constitution.
That's an old left-wing talking point.
I'll cite Thomas' dissent in the infamous Kelso case in New London as a case in point. It was an absolute masterpiece, and one of the best Supreme Court opinions to be issued in the last 20 years.
What makes Thomas so "undistinguished" on the Court is that his opinions tend to be very simple, but very concise -- as they should be.
"Such-and-such is a clear violation of This-or-That Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" is about as clear and concise as a formal opinion needs to be.
Somebody posted some stats yesterday on how often any two justices have agreed with each other. The Thomas-Scalia combination ranked only about 7th with about 70% or so of their decisions matching. I personally think Thomas is the better of the two.
To say he just says "me too" when Scalia writes an opinion shows your ignorance of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Scalia and Thomas have different views of Constitutional law and disagree on many cases. Scalia is a textualist and Thomas is an originalist. Thomas has written many powerful dissents, such as the U. of Mich case this year.
And, if Scalia is such a domineering voice on the court, how come he hasn't been able to swing O'Connor and Kennedy more his way?
You love to base arguments on speculation, don't you? How do you know that in the cases he votes with Scalia, they wouldn't have voted the other way but for his convincing? You also need to start thinking long term. It isn't all about convincing fellow judges on the SCOTUS. It is also about presenting intellectual arguments to change the course of thought in legal acedemia. Without Scalia or Thomas on the Court, law students (i.e. future judges) would hear the rantings of Ginsberg and Souter with no intelligent counterargument and become Ginsbergs and Souters themselves.
Now adding Clarence Thomas to the long list of conservatives getting trashed by Bush/Miers supporters. By the time this is all over, it will be Bush/Miers = Good, All Other Conservatives = Bad.
DITTO!!!! AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!
Dissent in Kelo v New London
Argues an interpretation of the takings clause of the 5th amendment ("public use")
I fail to see how knocking down Clarence Thomas advances support for Harriet Miers. But that's just me. I'm sure that in your eyes, I'm as big of a "me too" follower as Clarence Thomas is.
There were four dissenters to the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the use of affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School [Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger Et Al], but only one, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court's only African-American, attracts outright sneering.http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/29/Columns/Justice_Thomas__disse.shtml
Justice Thomas: "Dope is cool."
Justice Scalia: "Let the cancer patients suffer."It was about what the Constitution's commerce clause permits and, even more abstractly, who decides what the commerce clause permits. To simplify only slightly, Antonin Scalia says: Supreme Court precedent. Clarence Thomas says: the Founders, as best we can interpret their original intent. ...
Two years ago, Thomas (and Scalia and William Rehnquist) dissented from the court's decision to invalidate a Texas law that criminalized sodomy. Thomas explicitly wrote, "If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it." However, since he is a judge and not a legislator, he could find no principled way to use a Constitution that is silent on this issue to strike down the law. No matter. If Thomas were nominated tomorrow for chief justice you can be sure that some liberal activists would immediately issue a news release citing Thomas's "hostility to homosexual rights."
And they will undoubtedly cite previous commerce clause cases -- Thomas joining the majority of the court in striking down the Gun Free School Zones Act and parts of the Violence Against Women Act -- to show Thomas's "hostility to women's rights and gun-free schools."
I hope President Bush nominates Thomas to succeed Rehnquist as chief justice, not just because honoring an originalist would be an important counterweight to the irresistible modern impulse to legislate from the bench but, perhaps more importantly, to expose the idiocy of the attacks on Thomas that will inevitably be results-oriented: hostile toward women, opposed to gun-free schools . . . and pro-marijuana?
Great post.
What you have done here is to shine a light upon that ugly no-man's land between hating the courts and wanting the courts to decide one's own way.
Which is it?