Justice J Thomas Analysis

J Thomas is the second African- American to sit on the bench, he is known to the public for his lack of interest to participate in oral arguments. Thomas has voted often with Justice Antonio Scalia and Justice Williams Rehnquist, which all three Justice led in conservative views. (Sunnivie Brydum, Advocate, 2015) He has not asked any questions or made any comments since 2006, while other Justice give their opinions on issues and comments on others. (Oyez). However, just because the Justice remains silent does not mean that he is just there to be there, he listens to what the other Justice viewpoints and opinions are, and shows how he feels about them through his conservative actions. It is very known that other African-American politicians

constitution. During his time on the Supreme Court bench he has rejected the moves towards build-up, he believes that focus should be on the actual meaning of the Constitution and not just want the court says it means due to past cases. Most if not all of the Justices opinions are based off originality, and public meaning this approach seeking to explain the original constitutional text. (Conwell Law). “I have said in my opinions that when interpreting the Constitution, judges should seek the original understanding of the provision’s text, if that text’s meaning is not readily apparent”. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, May 2001) Therefore, in deciding cases Thomas turns towards documents that identify that original duties of framers and the what gives the original understanding for public meaning in the constitution. Some say that Thomas original approach limits his demand for his opinion and involvement; due to most cases citing past cases and using those to interpret the Constitution. Clarence approach and views are full of The Federalist, Anti-Federalist, and The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution all in one into his opinion. (Ralph

Supreme Court, there are many examples that shows his true beliefs towards the use of the original meaning of the Constitution. His dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), he voted to hold California’s medical marijuana laws. Also his opinion towards Hillside Dairy V. Lyons (2003) upholding economic protection, rather than siding with free market. (Conwell Law). Another opinion that he bestowed his conservative values was through Federal Communications Commission V. Fox (2009) that the protection under the First Amendment should cover Broadcast Speech, and his view on Anti-abortion. Clarence also comes with opinion towards criminal defendants, in Van Orden V. Perry (2005), Thomas He called for a “return to the views of the Framers,” and argued for the adoption of physical coercion “as the touchstone for our Establishment Clause inquiry.” (FindLaw) However, with all of his opinion is sticks around the facts of his original approach, but it also shares the opinions of his other conservative bench members.