Justice Clarence Thomas essay
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
203
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by LieutenantDove2650
Isadora C. Silva
Prof. Tortorici
Law 203.09
Justice Clarence Thomas: Originalism, Stare Decisis, and Precedent in Contemporary
Society
The 2016 interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, conducted by Bill Kristol, offers valuable insights into Justice Thomas's views on originalism, stare decisis, and precedent. This essay aims to analyze the alignment of Justice Thomas's views with contemporary society, considering their popularity and implications within the current political climate. Additionally, surprising aspects revealed during the interview will be addressed.
Justice Thomas is widely recognized for his unwavering commitment to originalism, a judicial philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on its original public meaning at the time of its enactment (Thomas, 2016). He firmly believes and restates several times throughout the interview how he thinks that the Constitution should be applied as it was understood by its framers, asserting that it is not a living document open to reinterpretation based on evolving societal norms. He keeps on coming back to what was actually written in the Constitution and expands on how that explains his SCOTUS’ decisions, being it the majority or minority one. In the context of contemporary society, Justice Thomas's originalist approach appears to be out-of-step with prevailing trends. Meaning that many proponents of a more flexible interpretation argue that the Constitution should be adaptable to changing social values and circumstances (Epstein, 2017). They contend that originalism may affect negatively progress and
limit the judiciary's ability to address modern challenges effectively. Consequently, Justice Thomas's views on originalism can be considered less popular among those favoring a more dynamic and evolving interpretation of the Constitution.
Stare decisis, the principle of respecting and adhering to established legal precedents, is a topic on which Justice Thomas has expressed reservations (Thomas, 2016). He argues that when precedents contradict the original meaning of the Constitution, they should not be given undue deference, which in this context would refer to an excessive or uncritical reliance on legal precedents that may contradict the original meaning of the Constitution. Justice Thomas believes that excessive reliance on precedent can lead to flawed interpretations and decisions that deviate from the Constitution's original intent.
Isadora C. Silva
Prof. Tortorici
Law 203.09
Justice Clarence Thomas's views on stare decisis align with a broader conservative legal philosophy that emphasizes fidelity to the Constitution (Dorf, 2015). However, in contemporary society, the acceptance and popularity of his views on stare decisis and precedent are highly dependent on one's political affiliation and ideological leanings. The increasing polarization of politics nowadays has led to intensified scrutiny of Supreme Court decisions, with a focus on appointing justices who align with specific ideologies (Liptak, 2019). Consequently, the ascendance or descendance of Justice Thomas's views on stare decisis depends on the prevailing political climate.
Considering the current political climate, Justice Thomas's views on originalism, stare decisis, and precedent can be seen as descendant or becoming less popular among those who advocate for a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution. The political landscape has witnessed increasing polarization, with different factions having distinct perspectives on the Constitution and the role of the judiciary (Kavanaugh, 2017).
In recent years, there has been a growing push from liberal activists and some legal scholars to challenge the dominance of originalism and promote a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution. This is particularly evident in debates concerning issues such as reproductive rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, and voting rights. These discussions reflect a societal shift towards emphasizing inclusivity, equality, and social justice (Epstein, 2017). Consequently, some may say that Justice Thomas's originalist views and skepticism towards precedent may face
resistance from those seeking to advance a more liberal agenda.
One surprising aspect of Justice Thomas's views, highlighted in the interview, is his deep skepticism of the media and its impact on public perception of the judiciary. He argues that media narratives often distort the public's understanding of the Constitution and the role of the courts. This skepticism aligns with a broader sentiment among conservatives who perceive mainstream media outlets as biased and untrustworthy (Huddy & Feldman, 2020). Justice Thomas's skepticism reflects the current era of heightened media scrutiny and the erosion of trust
in mainstream institutions.
In his interview, Justice Thomas expressed concerns about how media narratives can shape public opinion and distort the understanding of constitutional principles. He emphasized the importance of individual citizens engaging in independent research and critical thinking to
Isadora C. Silva
Prof. Tortorici
Law 203.09
develop a more accurate understanding of the Constitution and the judiciary (Thomas, 2016). This perspective resonates with those who believe that media bias and misrepresentation can have detrimental effects on public discourse and the functioning of democratic institutions.
Justice Clarence Thomas's views on originalism, stare decisis, and precedent present a distinctive perspective in contemporary society. While his commitment to originalism and reservations about excessive reliance on precedent align with conservative legal philosophies, they may be seen as out-of-step with prevailing interpretations and beliefs among those who advocate for a more progressive and flexible interpretation of the Constitution. The ascendance or descendance of his views depends on political affiliation, ideological leanings, and the polarized nature of contemporary politics.
Furthermore, Justice Thomas's skepticism towards the media, in which he personally opints out, and its influence on public opinion reflects a broader sentiment among conservatives who question the objectivity and trustworthiness of mainstream media sources. This skepticism aligns with the current environment of increased media scrutiny and the erosion of public trust in
traditional institutions.
In conclusion, Justice Clarence Thomas's views on originalism, stare decisis, and precedent present a distinct perspective in contemporary society. While they have garnered support among conservative circles, they face opposition from those who advocate for a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution. The increasing polarization of politics and the challenges posed by the media landscape contribute to the evolving reception of Justice Thomas's views. Ultimately, the influence and acceptance of his perspectives, assuming it continues to follow the same line of thought he has over his years on SCOTUS, will continue to be shaped by the dynamics of the political and ideological landscape in contemporary society.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Isadora C. Silva
Prof. Tortorici
Law 203.09
References:
Dorf, M. C. (2015). Justice Thomas and constitutional precedent. The George Washington Law Review, 83(6), 1686-1701.
Epstein, L. D. (2017). Progressives, originalists, and the shifting waters of constitutional interpretation. Texas Law Review, 95(6), 1153-1187.
Huddy, L., & Feldman, S. (2020). The media’s role in political polarization: A contextual theory of media effects. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press.
Kavanaugh, B. (2017). Fixing the Supreme Court's polarization problem. Harvard Law Review, 131(2), 413-490.
Liptak, A. (2019, August 24). What to know about the Supreme Court and its justices. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/supreme-court-justices.html
Thomas, C. (2016). Interview with Justice Clarence Thomas. Conversations with Bill Kristol. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Q3rZknW5gAk