Changes

'''Clarence Thomas''' (born June 23, 1948) is an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. He was born in Savannah, [[Georgia]], which he often mentions in referencing his roots, such as in his book, ''My Grandfather's Son''. His most prominent decisions include his decision for the Court in favor of after-hours religious school clubs in ''[[Good News Club v. Milford Central School]]'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001), his decision for the 5–4 Court invalidating a federal government seizure of property as a violation of the [[Eighth Amendment]] in ''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998) and his stirring dissent from the 5–4 invalidation of term limits passed in an Arkansas referendum with respect to its congressmen, in ''[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]]'', 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

'''Clarence Thomas''' (born June 23, 1948) is an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. He was born in Savannah, [[Georgia]], which he often mentions in referencing his roots, such as in his book, ''My Grandfather's Son''. His most prominent decisions include his decision for the Court in favor of after-hours religious school clubs in ''[[Good News Club v. Milford Central School]]'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001), his decision for the 5–4 Court invalidating a federal government seizure of property as a violation of the [[Eighth Amendment]] in ''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998) and his stirring dissent from the 5–4 invalidation of term limits passed in an Arkansas referendum with respect to its congressmen, in ''[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]]'', 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Justice Thomas is a leader on the Court in urging limits or elimination on incorporating the [[Establishment Clause]] against the States, because that clause was ratified as a federalist provision for protecting States against the new federal government.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'', 542 U.S. 1, 45-46 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.”); ''Zelman v. Simmons-Harris'', 536 U.S. 639, 677-680, and n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> He is also highly respected by legal scholars for adhering to an interpretation of the [[U.S. Constitution]] based on its original text, meaning and understanding, which has included limiting federal powers. His judicial doctrine finds no basis in the [[U.S. Constitution]] for [[abortion]], ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', [[homosexual]] "rights," federal interference with state sovereignty, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] and constitutional limits on punitive damages. Compared to the rest of the court, Thomas strongly defends Second Amendment rights and has criticized the court for not doing more to protect it.<ref>Byas, Steve (February 21, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28347-justice-thomas-supreme-court-does-not-give-second-amendment-due-respect Justice Thomas: Supreme Court Does Not Give Second Amendment Due Respect]. ''The New American''. Retrieved February 21, 2018.</ref> Thomas has advocated for discarding faulty precedents when they clearly conflict with the text of the Constitution rather than irrationally clinging to such precedents.<ref>Clabough, Raven (June 18, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/32629-justice-clarence-thomas-opinion-decries-erroneous-precedent-hints-at-overturn-of-roe-v-wade Justice Thomas Opinion Decries “Erroneous Precedent,” Hints at Overturn of Roe v. Wade]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 18, 2019.</ref><ref>Freiburger, Calvin (June 18, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/thomas-calls-supreme-court-to-undo-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-possibly-upending-roe Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court shouldn’t follow ‘erroneous precedent,’ possibly upending Roe]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved June 18, 2019.</ref>

Justice Thomas is a leader on the Court in urging limits or elimination on incorporating the [[Establishment Clause]] against the States, because that clause was ratified as a federalist provision for protecting States against the new federal government.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'', 542 U.S. 1, 45-46 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.”); ''Zelman v. Simmons-Harris'', 536 U.S. 639, 677-680, and n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> He is also highly respected by legal scholars for adhering to an interpretation of the [[U.S. Constitution]] based on its original text, meaning and understanding, which has included limiting federal powers. His judicial doctrine finds no basis in the [[U.S. Constitution]] for [[abortion]], ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', [[homosexual]] "rights," federal interference with state sovereignty, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] and constitutional limits on punitive damages. Compared to the rest of the court, Thomas strongly defends Second Amendment rights and has criticized the court for not doing more to protect it.<ref>Byas, Steve (February 21, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/28347-justice-thomas-supreme-court-does-not-give-second-amendment-due-respect Justice Thomas: Supreme Court Does Not Give Second Amendment Due Respect]. ''The New American''. Retrieved February 21, 2018.</ref> Thomas has advocated for discarding faulty precedents when they clearly conflict with the text of the Constitution rather than irrationally clinging to such precedents.<ref>Clabough, Raven (June 18, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/32629-justice-clarence-thomas-opinion-decries-erroneous-precedent-hints-at-overturn-of-roe-v-wade Justice Thomas Opinion Decries “Erroneous Precedent,” Hints at Overturn of Roe v. Wade]. ''The New American''. Retrieved June 18, 2019.</ref><ref>Freiburger, Calvin (June 18, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/thomas-calls-supreme-court-to-undo-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-possibly-upending-roe Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court shouldn’t follow ‘erroneous precedent,’ possibly upending Roe]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved June 18, 2019.</ref><ref>Stempel, Jonathan (June 17, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-thomas/justice-thomas-urges-us-supreme-court-to-feel-free-to-reverse-precedents-idUSKCN1TI2KJ Justice Thomas urges U.S. Supreme Court to feel free to reverse precedents]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved June 29, 2019.</ref>

Thomas has a straightforward writing style that presents his principled approach in a clear manner and his judicial temperament is undisputed. He has an unblemished record of service on the Court since 1991 and has never had to recuse himself from a case due to activity off the bench or investments. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has trained more [[conservative]] law clerks than any other Justice.

Thomas has a straightforward writing style that presents his principled approach in a clear manner and his judicial temperament is undisputed. He has an unblemished record of service on the Court since 1991 and has never had to recuse himself from a case due to activity off the bench or investments. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has trained more [[conservative]] law clerks than any other Justice.