JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (Wikipedia Info)

Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Clarence Thomas
Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American
to serve on the Court.

Thomas grew up in Georgia and was educated at the College
of the Holy Cross and at Yale Law School. In 1974, he was
appointed an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri and
subsequently practiced law there in the private sector. In
1979, he became a legislative assistant to Missouri United
States Senator John Danforth and in 1981 was appointed
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of
Education. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed
Thomas Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC); he served in that position until 1990,
when President George H. W. Bush nominated him for a seat
on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
On July 1, 1991, after 16 months of service as a judge,
United States
Thomas was nominated by Bush to fill Marshall's seat on the
United States Supreme Court. Thomas's confirmation hearings Incumbent
were bitter and intensely fought, centering on an accusation Assumed office
that he had made unwelcome sexual comments to attorney October 23, 1991
Anita Hill, a subordinate at the Department of Education and
Nominated by George H. W. Bush
subsequently at the EEOC. The U.S. Senate ultimately
confirmed Thomas by a vote of 52–48. Preceded by Thurgood Marshall
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
Since joining the Court, Thomas has taken a textualist the District of Columbia Circuit
approach, seeking to uphold what he sees as the original
meaning of the United States Constitution and statutes. He is In office
generally viewed as among the most conservative members of March 12, 1990 – October 23, 1991
the Court. Thomas has often approached federalism issues in Nominated by George H.W. Bush
a way that limits the power of the federal government and Preceded by Robert Bork
expands power of state and local governments. At the same
time, Thomas's opinions have generally supported a strong Succeeded by Judith Rogers
executive branch within the federal government. Chairperson of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
In office
May 6, 1982 – March 12, 1990
President Ronald Reagan
1 Early life and education George H.W. Bush
2 Influences Eleanor Holmes Norton
Preceded by
3 Career
3.1 Early career Succeeded by Evan Kemp

1 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


3.2 Federal judge Personal details
3.3 Supreme Court nomination and
confirmation Born June 23, 1948
3.3.1 Anita Hill allegations Pin Point, Georgia, U.S.
3.4 Early years on the Court Spouse(s) Kathy Ambush (1971–1984)
4 Public perception Virginia Lamp (1987–present)
5 Judicial philosophy
5.1 Conservatism and originalism Children Jamal Adeen Thomas
5.2 Voting alignment Alma mater Conception Seminary College
5.3 Number of dissenting opinions College of the Holy Cross
5.4 Stare decisis Yale Law School
5.5 Commerce Clause
5.6 Federalism Religion Roman Catholicism[1]
5.7 Privileges, immunities, and
firearms
5.8 Executive power
5.9 Free speech
5.10 Fourth Amendment
5.11 Sixth Amendment
5.12 Eighth Amendment and capital
punishment
5.13 Church and state
5.14 Equal protection and affirmative
action
5.15 Abortion
5.16 Gay rights
5.17 Judicial review
6 Approach to oral arguments
7 Personal life
8 Writings
9 See also
10 Footnotes
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links

Clarence Thomas was born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, predominantly black community founded by
freedmen after the American Civil War. When he was a child, the town lacked a sewage system and paved
roads. He was the second of three children born to M.C. Thomas, a farm worker, and Leola Williams, a domestic
worker.[2][3] They were descendants of American slaves, and the family spoke Gullah as a first language.[4]
Thomas's first-known ancestors were slaves named Sandy and Peggy who were born around the end of the 18th
century and owned by wealthy Liberty County, Georgia planter Josiah Wilson.[5] M.C. Thomas left his family
when Thomas was two years old. Thomas's mother worked hard but was sometimes paid only pennies per day.
She had difficulty putting food on the table and was forced to rely on charity.[6] After a house fire left them
homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to live with his mother's parents in Savannah,
Georgia. Thomas was seven when the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and

2 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


Anderson's wife, Christine (née Hargrove), in Savannah.[7]

Living with his grandparents, Thomas enjoyed amenities such as indoor plumbing and regular meals for the first
time in his life.[2] His grandfather Myers Anderson had little formal education, but had built a thriving fuel oil
business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known."[7] When Thomas
was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset.[7] His grandfather
believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."
Thomas's grandfather also impressed upon his grandsons the importance of getting a good education.[2]

Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honor student.[8] He was
raised Roman Catholic. (He later attended an Episcopal church with his first wife but returned to the Catholic
Church in the late 1990s.) He considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, and became the first black
student to attend St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope.[7] He also briefly attended
Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri. No one in Thomas's family had attended
college. Thomas has said that during his first year in seminary, he was one of only "three or four" blacks
attending the school.[8] Thomas told interviewers that he left the seminary in the aftermath of the assassination
of Martin Luther King, Jr. He had overheard another student say after the shooting, "Good, I hope the son of a
bitch died."[3][9] He did not think the church did enough to combat racism.[7]

At a nun's suggestion, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. While there,
Thomas helped found the Black Student Union. Once he walked out after an incident in which black students
were punished while white students went undisciplined for committing the same violation, and some of the
priests negotiated with the protesting black students to return to school.[8]

Having spoken the Gullah language as a child, Thomas realized in college that he still sounded unpolished despite
having been drilled in grammar at school, and he chose to major in English literature "to conquer the
language".[10] At Holy Cross, he was also a member of Alpha Sigma Nu and the Purple Key Society.[11] Among
Thomas's classmates at Holy Cross were future defense attorney Ted Wells and author Edward P. Jones, who
won the Pulitzer Prize for his novel, The Known World.[12] Thomas graduated from Holy Cross in 1971 with an
A.B. cum laude in English literature.[10][11]

Thomas had a series of deferments from the military draft while in college at Holy Cross. Upon graduation, he
was classified as 1-A and received a low lottery number, indicating he might be drafted to serve in Vietnam.
Thomas failed his medical exam, due to curvature of the spine, and was not drafted.[13] Thomas entered Yale
Law School, from which he received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974, graduating towards the middle of his
class.[14]

Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after
graduating. He said that potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies.[15]
According to Thomas, he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as
my grades indicated."[16]

I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to
remind myself of the mistake I’d made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its
value.[17]

3 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


In 1975, when Thomas read Race and Economics by economist Thomas Sowell, he found an intellectual
foundation for this philosophy.[6][18][19] The book criticized social reforms by government and instead argued
for individual action to overcome circumstances and adversity. He was also influenced by Ayn Rand,[20]
particularly The Fountainhead, and would later require his staffers to watch the 1949 film version.[6] Thomas
later said that novelist Richard Wright had been the most influential writer in his life; Wright's books Native Son
and Black Boy "capture[d] a lot of the feelings that I had inside that you learn how to repress."[21] Thomas
acknowledges having "some very strong libertarian leanings".[22]

Early career

Thomas was admitted to the Missouri bar on September 13, 1974.[23] From
1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under
then State Attorney General John Danforth, who met Thomas at Yale Law
School. Thomas was the only black member of Danforth's staff.[24] As
Assistant Attorney General, Thomas first worked at the criminal appeals
division of Danforth's office and moved on to the revenue and taxation
division.[25] Retrospectively, Thomas considers Assistant Attorney General
the best job he has ever had.[26] When Danforth was elected to the U.S.
Senate in 1976 to 1979, Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto
Company in St. Louis, Missouri.[27] He moved to Washington, D.C. and
returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as a Legislative Assistant Official Equal Employment
handling energy issues for the Senate Commerce Committee.[28] The two Opportunity Commission portrait
men shared a common bond in that they had studied to be ordained of Thomas
(although in different denominations). Danforth was to be instrumental in
championing 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 for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990, he was Chairman of the
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Journalist Evan Thomas characterized Thomas as
"openly ambitious for higher office" during his tenure at the EEOC. As Chairman, he promoted a doctrine of
self-reliance, and halted the usual EEOC approach of filing class-action discrimination lawsuits, instead pursuing
acts of individual discrimination.[29] He also asserted in 1984 that black leaders were "watching the destruction
of our race" as they "bitch, bitch, bitch" about President Reagan instead of working with the Reagan
administration to alleviate teenage pregnancy, unemployment and illiteracy.[30]

Federal judge

On October 30, 1989, Thomas was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated by Robert Bork, despite Thomas's initial
protestations that he would not like to be a judge.[31] Thomas gained the support of other African Americans
such as former Transportation Secretary William Coleman, but said that when meeting white Democratic staffers
in the United States Senate, he was "struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a
black man of not caring about civil rights."[31]

Thomas's confirmation hearing was uneventful.[32] He was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 6,

4 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


1990, and received his commission the same day. He developed warm relationships during his 19 months on the
federal court, including with fellow federal judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[31][33]

Supreme Court nomination and confirmation

Main article: Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination

Justice William Brennan stepped down from the Supreme Court in July 1990. Thomas was one of five candidates
on Bush's shortlist, and Bush's favorite of the five. Ultimately, after consulting with his advisors, Bush decided to
hold off on nominating Thomas, and nominated Judge David Souter of the First Circuit instead.[31] Souter would
disappoint conservatives, who had expected him to be more favorable towards them.

Less than a year later, on July 1, 1991 President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood
Marshall, who had just announced his retirement and had been the only African-American justice on the
Court.[34] Legal author Jeffrey Toobin says Bush and others saw Thomas as the only "plausible" black candidate
who would provide a reliably conservative vote.[35] In announcing his selection, President Bush called Thomas
the "best qualified [nominee] at this time."[31]

In those days, U.S. presidents submitted lists of potential federal court nominees to the American Bar
Association (ABA) for a confidential rating of their judicial temperament, competence and integrity on a
three-level scale of well qualified, qualified or unqualified.[36] Anticipating that the ABA would rate Thomas
more poorly than they thought he deserved, the White House and Republican Senators pressured the ABA for at
least the mid-level qualified rating, and simultaneously attempted to discredit the ABA as partisan.[nb 1][37] The
ABA did rate Thomas as qualified, although with one of the lowest levels of support for a Supreme Court
nominee.[38][39][40][41][42][43] Ultimately, the ABA rating ended up having little impact on Thomas' nomination.
[37][36]

Some of the public statements of Thomas's opponents foreshadowed the confirmation fight that would occur.
Both liberal interest groups and Republicans in the White House and Senate approached the nomination as a
political campaign.[44][45]

Attorney General Richard Thornburgh had previously warned Bush that replacing Thurgood Marshall, who was
widely revered as a civil rights icon, with any candidate who was not perceived to share Marshall's views would
make the confirmation process difficult.[46] Civil rights and feminist organizations opposed the appointment
based partially on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter
of Roe v. Wade.[citation needed]

Thomas's formal confirmation hearings began on September 10, 1991.[47] Thomas was reticent when answering
Senators' questions during the appointment process, recalling what had happened to Robert Bork when Bork
expounded on his judicial philosophy during his conformation hearings four years prior.[48] Thomas's earlier
writings had frequently referenced the legal theory of natural law; during his confirmation hearings Thomas
limited himself to the statement that he regards natural law as a "philosophical background" to the Constitution.
[49][50][51]
Thomas himself later asserted in his autobiography that in the course of his professional career, he
had not developed a judicial philosophy.[citation needed]

Anita Hill allegations

Toward the end of the confirmation hearings, an FBI interview with Anita Hill was leaked. Hill, an attorney, had

5 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and had subsequently moved with Thomas to the EEOC.[52]
After the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings. She testified that Thomas had
subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, which she felt constituted sexual harassment or at least "behavior
that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court."[53][54][55][56] Hill's testimony included lurid
details, and some Senators aggressively questioned her.[57]

Thomas denied the allegations, saying:[58]

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is
a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech
lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to
have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will
happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather
than hung from a tree.[59]

Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings that there had been unsolicited sexual advances.[60]
Angela Wright, who worked under Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her,[61] decided not to testify,[62] but
submitted a written statement alleging that Thomas had pressured her for a date and had made comments about
the anatomy of women. However, she said she did not feel his behavior was intimidating nor did she feel
sexually harassed, though she allowed that "Some other women might have".[63][64].[65] Also, Sukari Hardnett, a
former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee saying that although Thomas had not harassed her, she
did feel that he had inspected her as a female.[66][67]

Other former colleagues testified on Thomas's behalf. Nancy Altman, who shared
an office with Thomas at the Department of Education, testified that she heard
virtually everything Thomas said over the course of two years, and never heard
any sexist or offensive comment. Altman did not find it credible that Thomas
could have engaged in the conduct alleged by Hill, without any of the dozens of
women he worked with noticing it.[68] Senator Alan K. Simpson was puzzled
about why Hill and Thomas met, dined, and spoke by phone on various occasions
after they no longer worked together.[69]

According to the Oyez Project, there was a lack of convincing proof produced at
the Senate hearings.[2] After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7
on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a
Clarence Thomas being recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991,
sworn in by Byron White, as the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.[70] The final floor vote
wife Virginia Lamp Thomas was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm
looks on. while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.
Newspaper coverage of Thomas's private life was limited after he was
confirmed.[71]

Thomas received his commission and took the two required oaths several days after the Senate vote; this process
was delayed by the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist's wife, but the delay was reduced at the request of Thomas.
[72][73]
He indicated that he was eager to get to work,[73] and an additional reason for reducing the delay was to
end further media inquiry into Thomas's private life.[45][74] Reporters largely stopped such inquiries after
Thomas joined the Court, despite new information potentially corroborating some of Hill's testimony including
her description of Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences.[45][71] Throughout this episode, Thomas

6 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


defended his right to privacy, refused to describe discussions that he may have had outside the workplace
regarding his personal life, and promised that he would not allow anyone to probe his private life.[75]

The debate over who was telling the truth continues. Clarence Thomas wrote an autobiography addressing Anita
Hill's allegations, and she also wrote an autobiography addressing her experience in the hearings.[76]

Early years on the Court

Upon his appointment, Thomas was generally perceived as joining the conservative wing of the Court, voting
most frequently with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia.[77] Though most Justices, including Marshall,
whom he was replacing, immediately welcomed Thomas, law clerks of some liberal justices viewed him with
contempt, questioning his qualifications and intellectual heft.[78] Legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg says
that pundits' portrayal of Thomas as Antonin Scalia's understudy was grossly inaccurate – she says that from
early on, it was more often Scalia changing his mind to agree with Thomas, rather than the other way around.
[79][80]
On the other hand, Greenburg suggests that the forcefulness of Thomas's views pushed Justices Souter,
Sandra Day O'Connor, and Anthony Kennedy away.[79]

Thomas has rarely given media interviews during his time on the Court. He said in 2007: "One of the reasons I
don't do media interviews is, in the past, the media often has its own script."[8] In 2007, Thomas received a
$1.5 million advance for writing his memoir, My Grandfather's Son; it became a bestseller.[81][82]

Thomas biographer Scott Douglas Gerber has opined that attacks against Thomas from critics such as Jeffrey
Toobin have been unusually vitriolic, which Gerber attributes in part to liberals’ disappointment that Thomas has
departed so much from the jurisprudence of the African American whom he succeeded, Thurgood Marshall.[83]
Additional possible causes for the harsh criticism of Thomas may be the inherently explosive nature of sexual
misconduct accusations, the suspicion among some people that Thomas was less than forthcoming during his
confirmation hearings, and the belief in some circles that Thomas has benefited from affirmative action programs
like ones he has criticized as a judge.[83]

In 2006, Thomas had a 48% favorable, 36% unfavorable rating, according to Rasmussen Reports.[84][85]

Conservatism and originalism

Thomas is often described as an originalist and a member of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court.
[2][86][87]
He is also often described as the most conservative member of the Supreme Court,[14][88][89] although
others give Justice Scalia that designation.[90][91][92] Scalia and Thomas have similar but not identical judicial
philosophies, and pundits speculate about the degree to which Scalia thinks some of Thomas's views are
implausible.[93][94]

Thomas has also been described as a textualist whose jurisprudence is similar to that of Justice Hugo Black, who
"resisted the tendency to create social policy out of 'whole cloth.'"[95] According to the same commentator,
Thomas generally declines to engage in what he sees as judicial lawmaking, and instead views the constitutional

7 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


role of the Court as being the interpretation of law, rather than the making of law.[95]

Voting alignment

On average, from 1994 to 2004, Scalia and Thomas had an 86.7% voting alignment, the highest on the Court,
followed by Ginsburg and Souter (85.6%).[96] Scalia and Thomas's agreement rate peaked in 1996, at 97.7%.[96]
By 2004, however, other pairs of justices were observed to be more closely aligned than Scalia and Thomas.[97]

The conventional wisdom that Thomas's votes follow Antonin Scalia's is reflected by Linda Greenhouse's
observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006, and with Justice
John Paul Stevens the least, 36% of the time.[98] Statistics compiled annually by Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog
demonstrate that Greenhouse's count is methodology-specific, counting non-unanimous cases where Scalia and
Thomas voted for the same litigant, regardless of whether they got there by the same reasoning.[99] Goldstein's
statistics show that the two agreed in full only 74% of the time, and that the frequency of agreement between
Scalia and Thomas is not as outstanding as is often implied by pieces aimed at lay audiences. For example, in
that same term, Souter and Ginsburg voted together 81% of the time by the method of counting that yields a
74% agreement between Thomas and Scalia. By the metric that produces the 91% Scalia/Thomas figure,
Ginsburg and Breyer agreed 90% of the time. Roberts and Alito agreed 94% of the time.[100]

Legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg wrote in her book on the Supreme Court that Thomas's forceful
views moved moderates like Sandra Day O'Connor further to the left, but frequently attracted votes from
Rehnquist and Scalia.[101] Mark Tushnet and Jeffrey Toobin both observe that Rehnquist rarely assigned
important majority opinions to Thomas, because the latter's views made it difficult for him to persuade a majority
of justices to join him.[102]

Number of dissenting opinions

From 1994 to 2004, on average, Thomas was the third most frequent dissenter on the Court, behind Stevens and
Scalia.[96] Four other justices dissented as frequently in 2007.[103] Three other justices dissented as frequently in
2006.[104] One other justice dissented as frequently in 2005.[105]

Stare decisis

See also: Stare decisis in the U.S. legal system

According to law professor Michael J. Gerhardt, Thomas has supported leaving a broad spectrum of
constitutional decisions intact.[106] Thomas supports statutory stare decisis.[107] During his confirmation
hearings Thomas said: "[S]tare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our
process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept."[108] Among the
thirteen justices who served on the Rehnquist Court, Thomas ranked eleventh for the number of votes he cast
overturning precedent (without accounting for length of Court service).[109] However, on a frequency basis, he
urged overruling and joined in overruling precedents more frequently than any other justice.[109]

According to Scalia, Thomas is more willing to overrule constitutional cases: "If a constitutional line of authority
is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."[110] Thomas's belief in originalism is strong; he has
said, "When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from
the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor

8 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


of the Constitution's original meaning."[111] Thomas believes that an erroneous decision can and should be
overturned, no matter how old it is.[111]

Commerce Clause

Thomas has consistently supported narrowing the Court's interpretation of the Constitution's Interstate
Commerce Clause (which is often simply called the "Commerce Clause") to limit federal power. At the same
time, Thomas has broadly interpreted states' sovereign immunity from lawsuits under the Commerce Clause.[112]

In United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, the Court held that Congress lacked power under the
Commerce Clause to regulate non-commercial activities. In these cases, Thomas wrote a separate concurring
opinion arguing for the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. Subsequently, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court
interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause to empower the
federal government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison patients who used marijuana grown at home for medicinal
purposes. Thomas dissented in Raich, again arguing for the original meaning of the Commerce Clause.

Thomas and Scalia have rejected the notion of a Dormant Commerce Clause, also known as the "Negative
Commerce Clause". That doctrine bars state commercial regulation even if Congress has not yet acted on the
matter.[113]

In Lopez, Thomas expressed his view that federal regulation of either manufacturing or agriculture is
unconstitutional; he sees both as outside the scope of the Commerce Clause.[114][115] He believes federal
legislators have overextended the Commerce Clause, while some of his critics argue that Thomas's position on
Congressional authority would invalidate much of the contemporary work of the federal government.[115]
According to Thomas, it is not the Court's job to update the Constitution. Proponents of broad national power
such as Professor Michael Dorf deny that they are trying to update the Constitution. Instead, they argue that
they are merely addressing a set of economic facts that did not exist when the Constitution was framed.[116]

Federalism

Federalism was a central part of the Rehnquist Court's constitutional agenda.[117] Thomas consistently voted for
outcomes that promoted state-governmental authority, in cases involving federalism-based limits on Congress's
enumerated powers.[117] According to law professor Ann Althouse, the Court has yet to move toward "the
broader, more principled version of federalism propounded by Justice Thomas."[118]

In Foucha v. Louisiana, Thomas dissented from the majority opinion that required the removal from a mental
institution of a prisoner who had become sane.[119] The Court held that a Louisiana statute violated the Due
Process Clause "because it allows an insanity acquittee to be committed to a mental institution until he is able to
demonstrate that he is not dangerous to himself and others, even though he does not suffer from any mental
illness."[120] Dissenting, Thomas cast the issue as a matter of federalism.[119] "Removing sane insanity
acquittees from mental institutions may make eminent sense as a policy matter," he concluded, "but the Due
Process Clause does not require the States to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges."[120]

Privileges, immunities, and firearms

Thomas agreed with the judgment in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the right to keep and bear arms is
applicable to state and local governments, but Thomas wrote a separate concurrence finding that an individual's
right to bear arms is fundamental as a privilege of American citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities

9 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


Clause rather than as a fundamental right under the due process clause. The four justices in the plurality opinion
specifically rejected incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause, "declin[ing] to disturb" the holding
in the Slaughter-House Cases, which, according to the plurality, had held that the clause applied only to federal
matters.[121][122]

Executive power

Thomas has argued that the executive branch has broad authority under the Constitution and federal statutes. In
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, he was the only justice who agreed with the Fourth Circuit that Congress had power to
authorize the President's detention of US citizens who are enemy combatants. Thomas granted the federal
government the "strongest presumptions" and said "due process requires nothing more than a good-faith
executive determination" to justify the imprisonment of Hamdi, a US citizen.[123]

Thomas also was one of three justices who dissented in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which held that the military
commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay required explicit
congressional authorization, and held that the commissions conflicted with both the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) and "at least" Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.[124] Thomas argued that Hamdan
was an illegal combatant and therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention, and he agreed with Justice
Scalia that the Court was "patently erroneous" in its declaration of jurisdiction in this case.

Free speech

Among the nine justices, Thomas was the second most likely to uphold free speech claims (tied with David
Souter), as of 2002.[125] He has voted in favor of First Amendment claims in cases involving a wide variety of
issues, including pornography, campaign contributions, political leafleting, religious speech, and commercial
speech.

On occasion, however, he has disagreed with free speech claimants. For example, he dissented in Virginia v.
Black, a case that struck down a Virginia statute that banned cross burning. Concurring in Morse v. Frederick,
he argued that students' free speech rights in public schools are limited.[126]

Thomas authored the decision in ACLU v. Ashcroft, which held that the Child Online Protection Act might (or
might not) be constitutional. The government was enjoined from enforcing it, pending further proceedings in the
lower courts.[127]

Thomas wrote a concurrence in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).[128]

Fourth Amendment

In cases regarding the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, Thomas often
favors police over defendants. For example, his opinion for the Court in Board of Education v. Earls upheld
drug testing for students involved in extracurricular activities, and he wrote again for the Court in Samson v.
California, permitting random searches on parolees. He dissented in the case Georgia v. Randolph, which
prohibited warrantless searches that one resident approves and the other opposes, arguing that the case was
controlled by the Court's decision in Coolidge v. New Hampshire. In Indianapolis v. Edmond, Thomas described
the Court's extant case law as having held that "suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible
if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops." Although he
expressed doubt that those cases were correctly decided, he concluded that since the litigants in the case at bar
had not briefed or argued that the earlier cases be overruled, he believed that the Court should assume their

10 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


validity and rule accordingly.[129] There are counterexamples, however: he was in the majority in Kyllo v.
United States, which held that the use of thermal imaging technology to probe a suspect's home, without a
warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment.

In cases involving schools, Thomas has advocated greater respect for the doctrine of in loco parentis, which he
defines as "parents delegat[ing] to teachers their authority to discipline and maintain order."[130] His dissent in
Safford Unified School District v. Redding illustrates his application of this postulate in the Fourth Amendment
context. School officials in the Safford case had a reasonable suspicion that 13-year-old Savana Redding was
illegally distributing prescription-only drugs. All the justices concurred that it was therefore reasonable for the
school officials to search Redding, and the main issue before the Court was only whether the search went too far
by becoming a strip search or the like.[130] All justices but Thomas concluded that this search violated the Fourth
Amendment. The majority required a finding of danger or reason to believe drugs were hidden in a student's
underwear in order to justify a strip search. In contrast, Thomas said, "It is a mistake for judges to assume the
responsibility for deciding which school rules are important enough to allow for invasive searches and which
rules are not"[131] and that "reasonable suspicion that Redding was in possession of drugs in violation of these
policies, therefore, justified a search extending to any area where small pills could be concealed." Thomas said,
"There can be no doubt that a parent would have had the authority to conduct the search."[130]

Sixth Amendment

In Doggett v. United States, the defendant had technically been a fugitive from the time he was indicted in 1980
until his arrest in 1988. The Court held that the delay between indictment and arrest violated Doggett's Sixth
Amendment right to a speedy trial, finding that the government had been negligent in pursuing him and that he
was unaware of the indictment.[132] Thomas dissented, arguing that the purpose of the Speedy Trial Clause was
to prevent "'undue and oppressive incarceration' and the 'anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation'"
and that the case implicated neither.[132] He cast the case as instead "present[ing] the question [of] whether,
independent of these core concerns, the Speedy Trial Clause protects an accused from two additional harms: (1)
prejudice to his ability to defend himself caused by the passage of time; and (2) disruption of his life years after
the alleged commission of his crime." Thomas dissented from the Court's decision to, as he saw it, answer the
former in the affirmative.[132] Thomas wrote that dismissing the conviction "invites the Nation's judges to
indulge in ad hoc and result-driven second guessing of the government's investigatory efforts. Our Constitution
neither contemplates nor tolerates such a role."[133]

Eighth Amendment and capital punishment

Thomas was among the dissenters in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, which held that the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the application of the death penalty to certain classes of
persons. In Kansas v. Marsh, his opinion for the Court indicated a belief that the Constitution affords states
broad procedural latitude in imposing the death penalty, provided they remain within the limits of Furman v.
Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, the 1976 case in which the Court had reversed its 1972 ban on death sentences
if states followed procedural guidelines.

In Hudson v. McMillian, a prisoner had been beaten, garnering a cracked lip, broken dental plate, loosened
teeth, and cuts and bruises. Although these were not "serious injuries", the Court believed, it held that "the use of
excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate
does not suffer serious injury."[134] Dissenting, Thomas wrote that, in his view, "a use of force that causes only
insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be
remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not 'cruel and unusual punishment'. In

11 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


concluding to the contrary, the Court today goes far beyond our precedents."[134] Thomas's vote – in one of his
first cases after joining the Court – was an early example of his willingness to be the sole dissenter (Scalia later
joined the opinion).[135] Thomas's opinion was criticized by the 7-member majority of the Court, which wrote
that by comparing physical assault to other prison conditions such as poor prison food, Thomas's opinion ignored
"the concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency that animate the Eighth Amendment".[134]
According to historian David Garrow, Thomas's dissent in Hudson was a "classic call for federal judicial
restraint, reminiscent of views that were held by Felix Frankfurter and John M. Harlan II a generation earlier, but
editorial criticism rained down on him".[136] Thomas would later respond to the accusation "that I supported the
beating of prisoners in that case. Well, one must either be illiterate or fraught with malice to reach that
conclusion ... no honest reading can reach such a conclusion."[136]

In United States v. Bajakajian, Thomas joined with the Court's more liberal bloc to write the majority opinion
declaring a fine unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. The fine was for failing to declare over $300,000
in a suitcase on an international flight. Under a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 982 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/18/982.html) (a)(1), the passenger would have had to forfeit the entire amount. Thomas noted that the
case required a distinction to be made between civil forfeiture and a fine exacted with the intention of punishing
the respondent. He found that the forfeiture in this case was clearly intended as a punishment at least in part,
was "grossly disproportional", and a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause.[137]

Church and state

Law professor and former Thomas clerk John Yoo says Thomas supports allowing religious groups more
participation in public life.[138] Thomas says the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion") "is best understood as a federalism provision –- it protects state establishments
from federal interference but does not protect any individual right."[139]

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow[139] and Cutter v. Wilkinson,[140] Thomas wrote that he
supported incorporation of the Free Exercise Clause, which he says "clearly protects an individual right." He said
that any law that would violate the Establishment Clause might also violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Thomas says "it makes little sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause" vis-à-vis the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment.[139] And in Cutter, he wrote: "The text and history of the Clause may well support the
view that the Clause is not incorporated against the States precisely because the Clause shielded state
establishments from congressional interference."

Equal protection and affirmative action

Thomas believes that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race,
such as race-based affirmative action or preferential treatment. In Adarand Constructors v. Peña, for example,
he wrote "there is a 'moral [and] constitutional equivalence' between laws designed to subjugate a race and those
that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot
make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law. That [affirmative action]
programs may have been motivated, in part, by good intentions cannot provide refuge from the principle that
under our Constitution, the government may not make distinctions on the basis of race."[141]

In Gratz v. Bollinger, Thomas said that, in his view, "a State's use of racial discrimination in higher education
admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause."[142] In Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Thomas joined the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, who concluded

12 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."[143]
Concurring, Thomas wrote that "if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing
racial theories," and charged that the dissent carried "similarities" to the arguments of the segregationist litigants
in Brown v. Board of Education.[143] In Grutter v. Bollinger, he approvingly quoted Justice Harlan's Plessy v.
Ferguson dissent: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."[144]

Abortion

Thomas has contended that the constitution does not address the issue of abortion.[138] In Planned Parenthood
v. Casey (1992), the Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Thomas along with Justice Byron White joined the
dissenting opinions of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist wrote that "[w]e
believe Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled consistently with our traditional
approach to stare decisis in constitutional cases."[145] Scalia's opinion concluded that the right to obtain an
abortion is not "a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States."[145] "[T]he Constitution says
absolutely nothing about it," Scalia wrote, "and [ ] the longstanding traditions of American society have
permitted it to be legally proscribed."[145]

In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortion, concluding that it
failed the "undue burden" test established in Casey. Thomas dissented, writing: "Although a State may permit
abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so."[146] He went on to criticize the reasoning
of the Casey and Stenberg majorities: "The majority's insistence on a health exception is a fig leaf barely
covering its hostility to any abortion regulation by the States – a hostility that Casey purported to reject."

In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court rejected a facial challenge to a federal ban on partial-birth
abortion.[147] Concurring, Thomas asserted that the Court's abortion jurisprudence had no basis in the
Constitution, but that the Court had accurately applied that jurisprudence in rejecting the challenge.[147] Thomas
added that the Court was not deciding the question of whether Congress had the power to outlaw partial birth
abortions: [W]hether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause
is not before the Court [in this case] ... the parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question
presented; and the lower courts did not address it."[147]

Gay rights

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy
statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to
repeal the law. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due
Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly,
Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[148]

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado
State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S.
Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect
persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships."[149]

Judicial review

Thomas is the justice most willing to exercise judicial review of federal laws. According to a New York Times

13 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


editorial, "from 1994 to 2005 ... Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in
31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer."[150]

In 2009's Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, Thomas was the sole dissenter, voting in
favor of throwing out Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires states with a history of racial
voter discrimination—mostly states from the old South—to get Justice Department clearance when revising
election procedures. Though Congress had reauthorized Section 5 in 2006 for another 25 years, Thomas said the
law was no longer necessary, pointing out that the rate of black voting in seven Section 5 states was higher than
the national average. Thomas said "the violence, intimidation and subterfuge that led Congress to pass Section 5
and this court to uphold it no longer remains."[151]

Thomas is well known for his reticence during oral argument. As of February 12, 2011, he had not asked a
question from the bench in almost 5 years.[152] He has given many reasons for his silence, including
self-consciousness about how he speaks, a preference for listening to those arguing the case, and difficulty
getting in a word.[152] In 2000, he told a group of high school students that "if you wait long enough, someone
will ask your question."[153] In November 2007, he told an audience at Hillsdale College: "My colleagues should
shut up!" He later explained, "I don't think that for judging, and for what we are doing, all those questions are
necessary."[154] Thomas's speaking and listening habits may have also been influenced by his Gullah upbringing,
during which time his English was relatively unpolished.[4][10][155]

Thomas is not the first quiet justice. In the 1970s and 1980s, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry
Blackmun were likewise generally quiet.[156][157] However, Thomas's silence stood out in the 1990s as the other
eight justices engaged in active questioning.[157]

In 1971, Thomas married college sweetheart Kathy Grace Ambush. They had one child, Jamal Adeen. In 1981
they separated and in 1984 divorced.[21][158] In 1987, Thomas married Virginia Lamp, a lobbyist and aide to
Republican Congressman Dick Armey.[159] In 1997, they took in Thomas's then six-year-old great nephew,
Mark Martin, Jr.,[160] who had lived with his mother in Savannah public housing.[161]

Thomas's wife remained active in conservative politics, serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank, and as founder and president of Liberty Central, an advocacy group associated with the
Tea Party movement.[162] As of 2011, Thomas's wife stepped down from Liberty Central to open a conservative
lobbying firm touting her "experience and connections", meeting with newly elected Republican congressmen,
and describing herself as an "ambassador to the tea party".[163][164]

Thomas was reconciled to the Catholic Church in the mid-1990s. He remains a practicing Catholic.[165] In his
2007 autobiography, he criticized the Church for its failure to grapple with racism in the 1960s during the Civil
Rights Movement, saying it was not as "adamant about ending racism then as it is about ending abortion
now".[81] Thomas is one of thirteen Catholic justices—out of 110 justices total—in the history of the Supreme
Court, and one of six currently on the Court.[166]

Thomas has a reputation as an affable, good-humored man who is extremely personally popular with his friends
and colleagues. According to writer Jeffrey Toobin, "Fellow justices, law clerks, police officers, cafeteria

14 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


workers, janitors – all basked in Thomas's effusive good nature. His rolling basso laughter frequently pierced the
silence of the Court's hushed corridors."[167] He is particularly close to fellow justice (and ideological opponent)
Stephen Breyer, and the two are frequently seen at the Court's oral arguments whispering, laughing, and passing
notes.[168][169]

In January 2011, the liberal advocacy group Common Cause reported that between 2003 and 2007 Thomas
failed to disclose $686,589 in income earned by his wife from the Heritage Foundation, instead reporting "none"
where "spousal noninvestment income" would be reported on his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.[170]
The following week, Thomas stated that the disclosure of his wife's income had been "inadvertently omitted due
to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions".[171] Thomas amended reports going back to 1989.[172]

Thomas, Clarence (2007). My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir. Harper. ISBN 0-06-056555-1.
Thomas, Clarence. "Why Federalism Matters," Drake Law Review, Volume 48, Issue 2, page 234
(2000).

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of United States Supreme Court cases during
the United States the Rehnquist Court
List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of United States Supreme Court cases during
the United States the Roberts Court
List of U.S. Supreme Court Justices by
time in office

Notes

1. ^ Senior Republicans believed that Thomas was indeed well-qualified, but that the ABA would not support him
because in their mind, the ABA had been politicized. The White House attempted to preemptively discredit the
ABA as partisan, and Republican Senators threatened to bar the ABA from future participation if it gave Thomas
anything less than a "qualified" rating.

Citations

1. ^ Clarence Thomas bio (2003). October 19, 2008.
(http://www.nndb.com/people 3. ^ a b Brady, Diane (March 12, 4. ^ a b "In His Own Words:
/906/000024834/) from Notable 2007). "The Holy Cross Justice Clarence Thomas"
Names Database Fraternity" (http://www.nytimes.com
2. ^ a b c d e Oyez, The Oyez (http://www.businessweek.com /2000/12/14/politics
Project Supreme Court media, /magazine/content/07_11 /14TWOR.html) , New York
Clarence Thomas biography /b4025079.htm) . Times, Dec 14, 2000, accessed
(http://web.archive.org BusinessWeek. Mar 25, 2010
/web/20030513064005/http: http://www.businessweek.com 5. ^ Foskett 2004, pp. 22–23.
//www.oyez.org/oyez/resource /magazine/content/07_11 6. ^ a b c Merida, Kevin; Fletcher,
/legal_entity/106/biography) /b4025079.htm. Retrieved Michael A. (August 4, 2002).

15 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


"Supreme Discomfort". (http://www.washingtonpost.com /1991-07-07/news/mn-
Washington Post Magazine: /wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02 3055_1_supreme-court) . Los
pp. W08. /20/AR2007022001858_pf.html) Angeles Times.
7. ^ a b c d e Dolin, Monica . The Washington Post. http://articles.latimes.com/print
(October 3, 2007). "Anger Still http://www.washingtonpost.com /1991-07-07/news/mn-
Fresh in Clarence Thomas's /wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02 3055_1_supreme-court.
Memoir" (http://abcnews.go.com /20/AR2007022001858_pf.html. Retrieved March 29, 2011.
/TheLaw/Story?id=3682886& Retrieved October 19, 2008. 19. ^ Foskett, pp. 142–143
page=1) . ABC News. 13. ^ Simon, Martin (September 15, 20. ^ Bidinotto, Robert James,
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw 1991). "Supreme Mystery" Celebrity "Rand Fans" –
/Story?id=3682886&page=1. (http://www.newsweek.com Clarence Thomas,,
Retrieved October 19, 2008. /id/126939/) . Newsweek. (http://www.worldofatlasshrugged
8. ^ a b c d Brady, Diane. http://www.newsweek.com /rb_celebrity_ayn_rand_fans_clar
"Clarence Thomas Speaks Out" /id/126939/. Retrieved The Atlas Society.
(http://www.businessweek.com November 1, 2011. 21. ^ a b Greenburg, Jan Crawford
/magazine/content/07_11 14. ^ a b Kroft, Steve, (Sept. 30, (September 30, 2007).
/b4025080.htm) , BusinessWeek 2007) Clarence Thomas: The "Clarence Thomas: A Silent
(March 12, 2007). Justice Nobody Knows – Justice Speaks Out: Part VII:
9. ^ Margolick, David (July 3, Supreme Court Justice Gives 'Traitorous' Adversaries: Anita
1991). "Judge Portrayed as a First Television Interview To Hill and the Senate Democrats"
Product Of Ideals Clashing With (http://www.cbsnews.com (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw
Life" (http://query.nytimes.com /stories/2007/09/27/60minutes /story?id=3665221&page=1) .
/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4 /main3305443_page5.shtml) 60 ABC News.
DE143FF930A35754C0A96795 Minutes. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw
8260&sec=&spon=& 15. ^ "Talk Radio Online::Radio /story?id=3665221&page=1.
pagewanted=all) . New York Show" Retrieved October 18, 2008.
Times. http://query.nytimes.com (http://www.townhall.com 22. ^ Kauffman, Bill (November
/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE4 /TalkRadio 1987), "Clarence Thomas"
DE143FF930A35754C0A96795 /Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3& (http://reason.com/archives
8260&sec=&spon=& ContentGuid=8b54ead4-9c5c- /1987/11/01/clarence-thomas/2)
pagewanted=all. Retrieved 4dff-acba-aedc11a408db) . , Reason, p. 3. Retrieved April
October 19, 2008. Townhall.com. 29, 2010.
10. ^ a b c Kantor, Jody; Gonzalez, http://www.townhall.com 23. ^ Foskett 2004, p. 139.
David (June 6, 2009). "For /TalkRadio 24. ^ Foskett 2004, p. 138.
Sotomayor and Thomas, Paths /Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3& 25. ^ Foskett 2004, pp. 139–140.
Diverge at Race" ContentGuid=8b54ead4-9c5c- 26. ^ Foskett 2004, p. 147.
(http://www.nytimes.com 4dff-acba-aedc11a408db. 27. ^ Foskett 2004, pp. 147, 149.
/2009/06/07/us/politics Retrieved December 6, 2009. 28. ^ Foskett 2004, p. 149.
/07affirm.html?pagewanted=all) 16. ^ Lithwick, Dahlia. "From 29. ^ Thomas, Evan (July 15,
. New York Times. Clarence Thomas to Palin" 1991). "Where Does He Stand?"
http://www.nytimes.com (http://www.newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com
/2009/06/07/us/politics /id/161228) (Opinion Column), /1991/07/14/where-does-he-
/07affirm.html?pagewanted=all. Newsweek (September 27, stand.html) . Newsweek.
Retrieved April 5, 2010. 2008). http://www.newsweek.com
11. ^ a b "Clarence Thomas" 17. ^ Thomas 2007, pp. 143-144. /1991/07/14/where-does-he-
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com 18. ^ Tumulty, Karen (July 7, stand.html. Retrieved April 20,
/supreme_court/justices 1991). "Court Path Started in 2009.
/thomas.html) . FindLaw. the Ashes: A fire launched 30. ^ Williams, Juan (October 25,
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com Clarence Thomas on a path 1984). "EEOC Chairman Blasts
/supreme_court/justices toward fierce personal drive-but Black Leaders"
/thomas.html. Retrieved April 5, not before the Supreme Court (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com
2010. nominee journeyed through /washingtonpost_historical
12. ^ Weeks, Linton (February 21, anger, self-hatred, confusion and /access
2007). "Ted Wells, Center Of doubt." /125860002.html?dids=1258600
the Defense" (http://articles.latimes.com/print 02:125860002&FMT=ABS&

16 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


FMTS=ABS:AI& Presidential Nominations History of the U.S. Supreme
date=Oct+25%2C+1984& (http://thomas.loc.gov Court Appointments From
author=By+Juan+Williams+Was /home/nomis.html) , Look up of Washington to Bush II
hington+Post+Staff+Writer& Nomination: PN838-101. (http://books.google.com
pub=The+Washington+Post++ February 6, 1990 – Committee /books?id=NWJRemDnx2kC&
(1974-Current+file)&edition=& on Judiciary, hearings held. pg=PA27) , pp. 27-30, 299
startpage=A7& February 22, 1990 – Committee (Rowman and Littlefield 2007).
desc=EEOC+Chairman+Blasts+ on Judiciary, ordered to be 40. ^ Yalof, David. Pursuit of
Black+Leaders) . The reported favorably, placed on Justices: Presidential Politics
Washington Post. Senate Executive Calendar. and the Selection of Supreme
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com March 6, 1990 – floor action, Court Nominees
/washingtonpost_historical confirmed by the Senate by (http://books.google.com
/access voice vote. /books?id=LV-59wucEVkC&
/125860002.html?dids=1258600 33. ^ Profile (http://www.fjc.gov pg=PA214) , page 214
02:125860002&FMT=ABS& /servlet/nGetInfo?jid=2362) at (University of Chicago Press,
FMTS=ABS:AI& the 2001).
date=Oct+25%2C+1984& 41. ^
Biographical_Directory_of_Federal_Judges,Segal, Jeffrey and Spaeth,
author=By+Juan+Williams+Was a Public domain publication of Harold. The Supreme Court and
hington+Post+Staff+Writer& the Federal Judicial Center. the attitudinal model revisited
pub=The+Washington+Post++ Accessed November 1, 2011. (http://books.google.com
(1974-Current+file)&edition=& 34. ^ Dowd, Maureen. "The /books?id=ULG_G5xLTCwC&
startpage=A7& Supreme Court; Conservative pg=PA187) , page 187
desc=EEOC+Chairman+Blasts+ Black Judge, Clarence Thomas, (Cambridge University Press,
Black+Leaders. Retrieved April Is Named to Marshall's Court 2002).
20, 2009. "The chairman of the Seat" (http://www.nytimes.com 42. ^ Hall, Kermit and McGuire,
Equal Employment Opportunity /1991/07/02/us/supreme-court- Kevin. Institutions of American
Commission says that black conservative-black-judge- Democracy: The Judicial
leaders are 'watching the clarence-thomas-named- Branch
destruction of our race' as they marshall-s-court.html) , New (http://books.google.com
'bitch, bitch, bitch' about York Times (July 2, 1991). /books?id=8ZvEVHqK17IC&
President Reagan but fail to 35. ^ Toobin 2007, p. 26. pg=PA155) , page 155 (Oxford
work with the administration to ab University Press, 2006).
36. ^ Hall, Kermit and McGuire,
solve problems. Clarence Kevin. The Judicial Branch 43. ^ Toobin 2007, pp. 172, 398.
Thomas said in an interview (http://books.google.com 44. ^ Tushnet, Mark. A Court
that, in his 3½ years on the job, /books?id=8ZvEVHqK17IC& Divided
no major black leader has pg=PA155) , p. 155 (Oxford (http://books.google.com
sought his help in influencing the University Press 2006). /books?id=7Pr0YbpKnwgC&
Reagan administration. Black ab pg=PA335) , p. 335 (Norton &
37. ^ Viera, Norman; Gross,
spokesmen should be working Leonard (1998). Supreme Court Company 2005).
with the administration to solve appointments: Judge Bork and 45. ^ a b c Mayer, Jane; Abramson,
such problems as teen-age the politicization of Senate Jill (1994). Strange Justice: The
pregnancy, unemployment or Confirmations Selling of Clarence Thomas.
illiteracy instead of working (http://books.google.com Houghton Mifflin Company.
against Reagan, Thomas said." /books?id=g5eoFhCmFIEC& ISBN 978-0-395-63318-2.
31. ^ a b c d e Greenburg, Jan pg=PA137) . Southern Illinois 46. ^ Merida, Kevin; Michael
Crawford (September 30, 2007). University Press. p. 137. Fletcher (2008). Supreme
"Clarence Thomas: A Silent ISBN 9780809322046. Discomfort: The Divided Soul
Justice Speaks Out" http://books.google.com of Clarence Thomas
(http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw /books?id=g5eoFhCmFIEC& (http://books.google.com
/story?id=3664944&page=1) . pg=PA137. /books?id=-Sx-mz-fNGMC) .
ABC News. 38. ^ Foskett, Ken. Judging Random House.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw Thomas, p. 224 (William ISBN 9780767916363.
/story?id=3664944&page=1. Morrow 2004). http://books.google.com
Retrieved October 18, 2008. 39. ^ Abraham, Henry. Justices, /books?id=-Sx-mz-fNGMC.
32. ^ The Library of Congress Presidents, and Senators: A 47. ^ Toobin 2007, p. 30.

17 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


48. ^ Toobin 2007, pp. 25, 31. , The New York Times sjid=pl4DAAAAIBAJ&
49. ^ Toobin 2007, p. 31. (1991-10-12): pg=5188,197950&dq=anita-
50. ^ Woodward, Kenneth "Q: Professor Hill, there's a big hill+and+clarence-
(September 23, 1991). "Natural difference between your thomas+and+sexual-
Law, An Elusive Tradition" articulating your version of harassment+and+legal-sense&
(http://www.newsweek.com events, contrasted with your hl=en) , St. Petersburg Times
/1991/09/22/natural-law-an- statement that Judge Thomas (June 11, 1997): “Although
elusive-tradition.html) . sexually harassed you. And in Thomas was never accused of
Newsweek. the transcript of your October 7 illegal behavior – merely of
http://www.newsweek.com interview, you responded to a behavior thought unseemly in a
/1991/09/22/natural-law-an- question saying that it was Supreme Court nominee – in the
elusive-tradition.html. Retrieved sexual harassment. public mind the case conflated
April 20, 2009. "A: In my opinion, based on my obnoxious actions with illegal
51. ^ Epstein, Aaron (August 30, reading of the law, yes, it was. harassment."
1991). "The Natural Law But later on, immediately 57. ^ In particular, the questioning
According To Clarence following that response, I noted by Senator Specter was intense.
Thomas" to the press that I did not raise a See Morrison, Toni. "Race-ing
(http://community.seattletimes.n claim of sexual harassment in Justice, En-gendering Power"
wsource.com/archive this complaint. It seems to me (http://books.google.com
/?date=19910830& that the behavior has to be /books?num=100&hl=en&
slug=1302739) . The Seattle evaluated on its own with regard safe=off&
Times. to the fitness of this individual rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS262&
http://community.seattletimes.n to act as an Associate Justice. It q=%22intense%20questioning
wsource.com/archive seems to me that even if it does %22%20clarence%20anita%20sp
/?date=19910830& not rise to the level of sexual um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&
slug=1302739. Retrieved April harassment, it is behavior that is tab=wp) , p. 55 (Pantheon
20, 2009. unbefitting an individual who Books 1992). After the
52. ^ Campbell, Linda and Drew, will be a member of the Court." questioning, Specter said that,
Christopher. "Truth proves 54. ^ Braver, Rita. "Inappropriate "the testimony of Professor Hill
elusive in nomination drama" Conduct" in the morning was flat out
(http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com (http://www.cbsnews.com perjury", and that "she
/chicagotribune/access /stories/1999/03/18/sunday specifically changed it in the
/24507426.html?dids=24507426:24507426&/main39413.shtml) , CBS News afternoon when confronted with
FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT& (1999): “Hill herself did not the possibility of being
type=current& accuse Thomas of outright contradicted." See transcript
date=Oct+15%2C+1991& harassment, but did say that he (http://www.gpoaccess.gov
author=Linda+P.+Campbell+and+Christopher+Drew%2C+Chicago+Tribune.&
had made unwelcome advances /congress/senate/judiciary
pub=Chicago+Tribune+%28pre- toward her and used language /sh102-1084pt4/227-234.pdf) ,
1997+Fulltext%29& that embarrassed her." p. 230.
desc=Truth+proves+elusive+in+nomination+drama&
55. ^ Pollitt, Katha. Subject to 58. ^ Hudson, David. The
pqatl=google) , Chicago Debate: Sense and Dissents on Rehnquist Court:
Tribune (October 15, 1991): Women, Politics, and Culture, Understanding Its Impact and
"She said she followed Thomas page 161 (2001): "The question Legacy
to EEOC in 1982 as an Hill's testimony placed before (http://books.google.com
assistant...." us was not whether Thomas was /books?id=NBHgQfWaXhUC&
53. ^ "The Thomas Nomination; guilty of a legally actionable lpg=PA50&ots=r-08MxAG7p&
Excerpts From Senate's offense (she herself was unsure dq=%22the%20most%20memora
Hearings on the Thomas if his behavior added up to pg=PA50#v=onepage&
Nomination" sexual harassment) but whether q=%22the%20most%20memorab
(http://www.nytimes.com he belonged on the Supreme f=false) , p. 50 (2007).
/1991/10/12/us/the-thomas- Court." 59. ^ Hearing of the Senate
nomination-excerpts- 56. ^ Travis, Carol. "Casting Judiciary Committee on the
from-senate-s-hearings-on-the- Simple Louts as Lawbreakers" Nomination of Clarence Thomas
thomas- (http://news.google.com to the Supreme Court
nomination.html?pagewanted=12) /newspapers?id=3LkMAAAAIBAJ& (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu

18 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM


/etcbin/toccer- q=%22clarence%22&f=false) , /sh102-1084pt4/589-590.pdf) .
new-yitna?id=UsaThom& p. 219. (See table of contents for
images=images/modeng& 64. ^ "United States Senate, hearing, here.[1]
data=/lv6/workspace/yitna& Transcript of Proceedings" (http://www.gpoaccess.gov
tag=public&part=24) , (http://www.gpoaccess.gov /congress/senate/judiciary
Electronic Text Center, /congress/senate/judiciary /scourt.html) )
University of Virginia Library, /sh102-1084pt4/442-511.pdf) . 69. ^ "The Thomas Nomination;
October 11, 1991. U.S. Government Printing Questions to Those Who
60. ^ THE THOMAS Office. October 10, 1991. pp. Corroborated Hill Account"
NOMINATION; Excerpts From 442–511. (http://www.nytimes.com
an Interview With Another http://www.gpoaccess.gov /1991/10/29/us/the-thomas-
Thomas Accuser /congress/senate/judiciary nomination-questions-to-those-
(http://www.nytimes.com /sh102-1084pt4/442-511.pdf. who-corroborated-
/1991/10/15/us/the-thomas- Retrieved September 18, 2008. hill-account.html?pagewanted=1)
nomination-excerpts-from-an- 65. ^ "The Thomas Nomination; , The New York Times (October
interview-with-another-thomas- Excerpts From Judiciary 21, 1991).
accuser.html) , The New York Committee's Interview of 70. ^ Hall, Kermit (ed), The Oxford
Times (October 15, 1991). Angela Wright" Companion to the Supreme
61. ^ "The Thomas Nomination; On (http://www.nytimes.com Court of the United States, p.
the Hearing Schedule: Eight /1991/10/14/us/thomas- 871, Oxford Press, 1992 ISBN
Further Witnesses" nomination-excerpts-judiciary- 978-0-19-505835-2.
(http://query.nytimes.com committee-s-interview-angela- 71. ^ a b Yorke, Jeffrey. "The
wright.html) . The New York
/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1D71438F930A25753C1A967958260) Call-in People's Court"
, The New York Times (October Times. October 4, 1991. (http://www.encyclopedia.com
13, 1991) http://www.nytimes.com /doc/1P2-1092488.html) ,
62. ^ See hearing record from /1991/10/14/us/thomas- Washington Post (October 29,
October 13, 1991 nomination-excerpts-judiciary- 1991).
(http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin committee-s-interview-angela- 72. ^ "The Thomas Swearing-In; A
/toccer- wright.html. Retrieved Festive Mood at Thomas
new-yitna?id=UsaThom& November 1, 2011. Swearing-In"
images=images/modeng& 66. ^ Marcus, Ruth (October 30, (http://www.nytimes.com
data=/lv6/workspace/yitna& 2007). "One Angry Man, /1991/10/19/us/the-thomas-
tag=public&part=29) . Senator Clarence Thomas Is No Victim" swearing-in-a-festive-mood-at-
Biden wrote to Wright: "I wish (http://www.washingtonpost.com thomas-swearing-in.html?sec=&
to make clear, however, that if /wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10 spon=) , The New York Times
you want to testify at the hearing /02/AR2007100201822.html) (October 19, 1991).
in person, I will honor that Washington Post (opinion 73. ^ a b Greenhouse, Linda.
request." Wright responded to column). "If you were young, Thomas Sworn in as 106th
Biden: "I agree the admission of black, female and reasonably Justice"
the transcript of my interview attractive, you knew full well (http://www.nytimes.com
and that of Miss Jourdain's in you were being inspected and /1991/10/24/us/thomas-sworn-
the record without rebuttal at the auditioned as a female." in-as-106th-justice.html) , The
hearing represents my position 67. ^ Press Release, FAIR's Reply New York Times (October 24,
and is completely satisfactory to to Limbaugh's Non-Response 1991).
me." (10/17/94) (http://www.fair.org 74. ^ Toobin 2007, p. 39.
63. ^ Vieira, Norman and Gross, /index.php?page=1896) Fairness 75. ^ Fiske, John. Media matters:
Leonard (1998). Supreme Court and Accuracy in Reporting. race and gender in U.S. politics
appointments: Judge Bork and 68. ^ "Nomination of Judge (http://books.google.com
the politicization of Senate Clarence Thomas to be /books?id=qWXDcHQ9GwkC&
Confirmations Associate Justice of the pg=PA113&
(http://books.google.com Supreme Court of the United dq=%22will+not+get+into+any
/books?id=g5eoFhCmFIEC& States," Senate Hearing hl=en&
lpg=PA217& 102–1084, pt. 4, p. 590 ei=oErvS_eTBcG88gbYw9j9Cg&
dq=%22not%20an%20opportunity%20to%20talk%20about%20difficult%20matters%20privately%20or%20in%20a%
(http://www.gpoaccess.gov sa=X&oi=book_result&
pg=PA219#v=onepage& /congress/senate/judiciary ct=result&resnum=2&

19 of 27 12/23/2011 8:10 PM

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (Wikipedia Info)

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (Wikipedia Info)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (18)

Similar a JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (Wikipedia Info)

Similar a JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (Wikipedia Info) (15)

Último

Último (11)

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (Wikipedia Info)