Review: Justice Thomas’s Inconsistent Originalism
Justice Thomas’s Inconsistent Originalism
121 Harv. L. Rev. 1431 (March, 2008)
The framework and methodology Justice Thomas applies to his jurisprudence evinces a judicial philosophy that is remarkably complex because of its inconsistent approach to interpreting the Constitution, but that is also predictable within categories. The brief examination of Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence undertaken here suggests that similar ideals drive Clarence Thomas the person and Clarence Thomas the jurist: the principled man depicted in My Grandfather’s Son has constructed a judicial framework that permits him to stay true to his belief in racial equality.
One Comment
I have not read the article yet, because it is not readily available out here,and I have never found a Supreme Court justice with whom I always agreed, but this summary offers nothing to indicate any moral, logical, or practical deficiencies in Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence, only that the author does not like Thomas or his approach to certain kinds or classes of cases reaching the Supreme Court. One with similar motives nad purposes could write the same kind of criticism of Justices Doglas, Warren, etc.