The Clarence Thomas Court Is Good News for Gun Rights, Bad News for Criminal Justice Reform
Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
Throughout much of his career on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has been written off by liberal commentators as an intellectual lightweight who took his marching orders from Justice Antonin Scalia, his "apparent mentor," as New York Times legal pundit Linda Greenhouse once derisively put it.
To say the least, Greenhouse and the rest had no idea what they were talking about. In reality, it was Thomas who was quietly influencing Scalia in certain areas of the law, as Scalia himself repeatedly acknowledged. Thomas' critics underestimated him at their own peril.
The Supreme Court's recently concluded 2021–2022 term has driven that point home with a vengeance. On hot-button issue after hot-button issue, Thomas' views are now in ascendance. Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
And that is not even the whole story of Thomas' impact on American law. Think about it like this. There are several ways in which a judge can alter the legal landscape. One way is exemplified by the career of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a figure who was in the right place at the right time for a long time. A socially liberal/fiscally conservative type, Kennedy was perfectly placed on a closely divided Court to cast the tie-breaking fifth votes in several momentous cases, most notably the constitutional showdowns over gay rights. The judicial stars aligned in his favor and Kennedy now has his place in the legal history books.
Thomas, by contrast, has shaped the law by playing the long game. Over the past three decades, he has repeatedly staked out lonely positions—often writing in dissent but sometimes penning a solo concurrence—only to see many of his "extreme" positions ultimately become enshrined in law. What is more, generations of conservative law students, who have gone on to be conservative lawyers, lawmakers, and judges, have embraced many of Thomas' views as their own. Thomas' influence on the broader conservative legal movement will be felt for years to come.
The arrival of the Thomas Court is not exactly wonderful news for those Americans who would like to see every part of the Bill of Rights enforced with equal judicial vigor. Yes, Second Amendment advocates certainly have reason to cheer for Thomas, who is perhaps the most hawkish justice in cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. But First Amendment advocates have less cause to celebrate. As I have previously noted, "Thomas' recent statements in support of greater government control over 'digital platforms' such as Twitter and Facebook have somewhat tarnished his First Amendment bona fides."
And then there is the matter of criminal justice, an area where Thomas' jurisprudence has been quite deferential to police and prosecutors. Take his record on the Fourth Amendment. In Navarette v. California (2014), Thomas' majority opinion was blasted in dissent by none other than Scalia, who denounced Thomas' interpretation as "a freedom-destroying cocktail" that contradicted bedrock constitutional principles. It "is not my concept, and I am sure it would not be the Framers'," Scalia wrote of Thomas' opinion, "of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." Not exactly the nicest thing that one self-professed originalist can say to another.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Throughout much of his career on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has been written off by liberal commentators as an intellectual lightweight who took his marching orders from Justice Antonin Scalia, his “apparent mentor,” as New York Times legal pundit Linda Greenhouse once derisively put it.”
Amazing how racist Democrats can be when the field hands don’t tug their topknots and say “Yes, Massa.”
Not really sure how calling someone an intellectual lightweight could be perceived in racial terms. Why do you guys have to make every little thing about race?
It’s not like they call Thomas eloquent.
That was deemed racist when it was said of chocolate Jeebus.
“clean and articulate” ~~Brandon
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (ebt-05) achieving this I’m ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://dollarspay12.tk
Thomas has been attacked in the harshest racist terms since before he was put on the court.
He’s the original Lawn Nigger to the left. An Uncle Tom who’s betrayed his race.
https://blackcommentator.com/236/236_cartoon_uncle_thomas_emerge.html
Racism from the left towards Thomas nothing new unless you’ve been willfully blind for the last 25 years.
This SCOTUS is not “the Clarence Thomas Court.” That body is always named after its Chief Justice. Justice Thomas is not even a particularly important (or outspoken) member. The author of this piece should get basic terms right, unless they wish to be called “sloppy.”
Criminal justice reform done properly is through the legislative branch, not judicial.
Not like there are 4 amendments in the Bill of Rights directing what can and cannot be legislated in terms of criminal justice or anything.
That controls federal authority. States do have more police powers.
Instead of relying on judicial whims, fix the laws. Trim them by at least half.
lol…. It IS the judicial branches job to ‘Trim them’….
I’m starting to see a path here with the most stringent Pro-Life mob.
CANCEL the U.S. Constitution for Democracy!! /s
Have you talked to anyone about the birds and the bees yet?
Never heard of the FBI or ATF? whose “They shot first” is always an opening statement followed by totally surrounding a deemed innocent citizen and family having held a “siege and agents at bay”. The moment you are born you are old enough to die is the real motto of federal agents. (What precisely is a “Special Agent”?) Janet Reno took responsibility but did not go straight to death row. Of course a cop can pull you over and you might get a warning or be executed within 10 seconds and enjoy qualified immunity granted by that Supreme Court. So think it through again or at least once. And do not forget NYPD, a serial killer and citizen hero Joseph Lozito.
This can’t be emphasized enough.
Let emptytheprisons legislators face angry voters as a result of their vote getting stunts.
Well put!
“Criminal justice reform” AKA emptytheprisons
Why would we want to lock up criminals?
So, win/win.
For sure, if you are a Republican who thinks the constitution is just a set of suggestions.
Thomas to a T in fifteen words lol
No, I’m a libertarian who thinks “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” doesn’t just apply to government. I don’t want anyone in jail for something that shouldn’t be a crime*, or as a result of prosecutorial shenanigans, but those the thrust of the “criminal justice reform” crowd isn’t on those things, it’s on reducing prison population as such. If someone is fairly convicted of something that is rightly a crime, then by libertarian principles that person should be punished — after all, they’ve violated another person’s rights.
* And in any case, victimless crime laws are the result of politicians making those laws.
“If”, meaning what precisely? Democrats do not know a Constitution exists but a democracy is SACRED (mixing religion and government and both are tenuous at best.)
Uppity black man runnin’ thangs now.
Haven’t the last 4 years or so taught us all just what “criminal justice reform” really looks like?
That reality is this: Left-leaning criminals, including BLM and Antifa, get to do whatever they want with impunity, including burn, loot, rape, and murder.
But right-leaning people can’t even have peaceful demonstrations. If we try to, FBI agents and informants infiltrate us, commit violence to be blamed on us, then silently escape while we get smeared as terrorists.
A government that does these things is much worse than none, for it prevents us from even defending ourselves.
Reason Editors are clear. Left leaning criminals are mostly peaceful protestors and it’s no big deal when the VP of the US helps bail them out. Right leaning criminals are retarded Trumpistas and are traitors. They are literally terrorist and insurrectionists that forfeit their rights for due process.
Further: violent and career criminals get lenient sentences while minor offenses are punished to the full extent.
If you want to let them define the terms of the discussion, maybe. But the fact that some people want to do a thing badly doesn’t mean it can’t be done well.
Libertarians couldn’t get criminal justice reform done, so we outsourced it to Seattle and San Francisco Democrats.
I was into criminal justice reform before it was cool, man.
By the way, that’s not far off from what Michael Shellenberger says. He was into criminal justice reform and “harm reduction” until the crazy progressive Marxists hijacked it.
He is very interesting.
The Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime #FreeTheCriminals and #EmptyThePrisons agenda — AKA “criminal justice reform” — is a crucial component of the libertarian quest to make billionaires even richer. Because Mr. Koch finds he can pay rock-bottom wages to people with criminal records. Indeed, they will work almost as cheap as Mexicans.
#NoSentencesLongerThan2Months
#CheapLaborAboveAll
quoting Scalia’s derisive comment without quoting Thomas comment so that we can see what made it so awefull is not a fair play move by the author, of course he showed his bias by claiming Thomas’ opinions as extreme, again with out a citation.
This is Reason. What did you expect, quality journalism?
Horribly written article if you can even call it that.
Yeah there’s a little bit more to Thomas’ jurisprudence than the 2nd and fourth. He’s very libertarian on qualified immunity, the commerce clause and shit like Chevron. And let’s not forget Kelo. I guess we can’t expect a deep dive from a part time contributor but this really is crap.
that’s why they put the link in there dude.
should have put Scalia’s comments as a link then as well to be equal
Hello, Joe. It’s me: Corn Pop.
https://ifunny.co/picture/hello-joe-its-me-cornpop-Rc3jQncf9
Just what we need. More deference to the police. This isn’t something to be fixed with laws, because cops ignore the law. The only way to reign in police abuse is with the courts. And now we know that the current Supremes will always back the blue. So for now cops can be confident that they can do whatever they want.
Navarette was 5 to 4 but 3 of 4 were Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan who would overturn 99% of anything having to do with police conduct regardless of how reasonable it is. Case was close – a 911 call (usually traceable) from anonymous who reported erratic driving by a truck and gave description and license plate; police were quick to the scene and confirmed those facts and then satisfied the very low Constitutional burden by making a reasonable stop and see; then they smelled pot and found 30 pounds being trafficked. It’s been 8 years and Scalia’s concern that the 4th Amendment is no longer an impediment to ‘reasonable’ searches because of Navarette has not panned out.
the Kennedy love because Obergefell is hilarious. that dude’s entire reason for being was the spotlight
BONG HITS FOR JESUS!
I’ve never owned a bong. They smell.
So’s your mom.
Criminal justice reform is a legislative issue, and it is largely a state issue.
But, hey, leave it to Reason to favor undemocratic, centralized government! It’s the New Libertarianism!
“Criminal justice reform is a legislative issue, and it is largely a state issue.
But, hey, leave it to Reason to favor undemocratic, centralized government! It’s the New Libertarianism!”
Courts exist for many reasons, and one of them is to correct the legislature when it screws up in terms of violation of rights.
one of them is to correct the legislature when it screws up in terms of violation of rights.
No. It’s not the job of the Court to correct the legislature when it screws up in terms of violations of rights. It’s the job of the Court to correct the legislature when it screws up in terms of violations of the law, of which the Constitution (as amended) is the supreme law. Judges aren’t supposed to read things into the law just because they think they should be in there. No matter how much they don’t like the law as written, their job is to uphold the law as written. If they’re that unhappy with the law as written, they should step down from the bench and run for the legislature, where they can proceed to persuade their fellow legislators that their views are better.
Another fan of IGNORE the U.S. Constitution for democracy.
We’re a Republic. You really are simple.
A *Constitutional* Republic specifically with a goal to instill Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
This SCOTUS is not “the Clarence Thomas Court.” That body is always named after its Chief Justice. Justice Thomas is not even a particularly important (or outspoken) member. The author of this piece should get basic terms right, unless they wish to be called “sloppy.”
Pretty sure somebody must have linked this but if you missed it enjoy Beavis and Butthead discover white privilege.
https://twitter.com/Perpetualmaniac/status/1541315869820608512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1541315869820608512%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%2Farticles%2Fwhy-the-anti-woke-beavis-and-butt-head-trailer-is-so-hilarious-and-a-real-threat-to-white-privilege-theory%2F
As a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas’s loyalty is to the Constitution, not to your pet projects Damon!
You should know this; https://reason.com/2020/12/12/trump-lost-because-scotus-answers-to-the-constitution-not-to-him/
Thanks for your sharing! The information your share is very useful to me and many people are looking for them just like me! best coffee beans
Thomas if nothing else is an example of the success of affirmative action from which he benefitted immensely and which he has always worked to end for others behind him.
And yes, he has a terrible and angry record as someone who doesn’t GAF about the rights of defendants. Look at the case involving New Orleans prosecutors who knowingly withheld exculpable evidence which resulted in long jail terms for innocent men if you want to puke.
Real criminal justice reform starts with acknowledging that when someone who has taken an overdose of a drug that suppresses breathing, and then announces that he can’t breathe, shortly thereafter stops breathing, with no physical evidence that anything other than the drug stopped his breathing, that at least reasonable doubt exists as to whether there was any homicide committed.
the most hawkish justice ?? The 2nd is a protected Right and is not “hawkish”. Reason needs editors and actual journalists. The term “justice” needs no adjectives prefacing it. Justice must be served or you lose your country when you display your weakness.