Clarence Thomas, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court starting around 1991, is an eminent figure in American law.
With a firm safe position and a guarantee to originalism, Thomas has left a huge engraving on lawful talk, molding feelings on key established issues.
Who is Clarence Thomas?
Clarence Thomas serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and is one of the notable figures in American jurisprudence since his appointment to that position in 1991.
Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia, where he struggled through adverse circumstances of poverty and racial prejudice to become one of the most celebrated judges in America.
After graduating from Yale Law School in 1974, Thomas developed a legal career that spanned various government positions, such as Missouri Assistant Attorney General and Chairman of the EEOC under Ronald Reagan.
Thomas was the one who gained notice for his conservative stance on civil rights issues while he served at EEOC during his tenure, which eventually became a guiding principle of his philosophy as Supreme Court Justice.
President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas in 1991; however, Hill accused him of sexual harassment, which he disputed adamantly.
Thomas was confirmed by the Senate and settled on the Supreme Court on October 23, 1991.
As the Justice of the Court, Thomas has been known to carry out an originalist and textual approach to interpretation, which sees him championing strict adherence to both texts in the Constitution as taken during its formation.
He has written many dissents and opinions on different issues, including affirmative action, abortion rights, and the limits of federal power.
What happened to Clarence Thomas?
Clarence Thomas has served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991 after President George H.W. Bush appointed him to this position and he is still serving in court today.
During his career, Thomas has been a rather controversial person with a clear conservative judicial philosophy and often dissenting opinions on different legal cases.
A crucial feature of Thomas’s judicial approach is the originalism theory, which interprets the Constitution based on its meaning when it was enacted.
This strategy has resulted in Thomas being a neutral politician who takes stances on abortion, affirmative action, and the Second Amendment that conflict with usual liberal perceptions.
During his tenure, Thomas has authored landmark opinions and dissents on a diverse range of issues. In particular, he wrote the judgment in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), where it was held that the Second Amendment’s freedom to bear arms is enforceable against states and local governments as well.
Thomas has also been a notable critic of affirmative action programs for the reason that they further racial discrimination instead of eradicating it.
Besides his jurisprudence, Thomas has been subject to criticism and controversy beyond the courtroom. The allegations of sexual harassment in the 1991 confirmation hearings for Thomas created a lot of public unrest, splitting opinions.
Thomas vigorously denied those allegations and called them a ‘high-tech lynching.’ Despite the scandal, he was confirmed by the Senate and has remained on the court since.
What actions did Justice Thomas take?
Justice Clarence Thomas, realizing that he was in a financial bind during the early 2000s, took proactive measures to transform his situation.
Thomas argued privately for a higher salary award to the Supreme Court justices to correct this disparity between their salaries and the economic requirements of these positions.
He argued that a pay raise was vital to allow justices to sustain themselves and their families adequately in tandem with the high cost of living as well as the demands associated with their roles.
Moreover, Thomas strived for the repeal of the ban on accepting speaking fees. Through his advocacy for this change, he hoped that the justices would get an opportunity to generate additional income other than judicial duties.
Thomas regarded this as a way of relieving all the financial stress, thus allowing justices to continue enjoying their economic stability without having any effect on judicial independence or integrity.
By emphasizing the urgency of this issue, Thomas mentioned concerns about the possible resignations if Congress did not solve these financial problems.
He understood the necessity of equitable remuneration for preserving talented and seasoned justices, depending on incentives to keep producing an effective Supreme Court.