Changes

Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Scalia has. Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Thomas wrote a concurrence strongly suggesting a [[conservative]], individual-rights view of the [[Second Amendment]]. No other Justice on the Court joined that concurrence. Only Thomas has expressed disagreement with the "aggregation principle" used to expand [[federal]] power based on the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>[[United States v. Lopez]], 514 U.S. 549, 600, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995) (concurring opinion).</ref>

Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Scalia has. Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Thomas wrote a concurrence strongly suggesting a [[conservative]], individual-rights view of the [[Second Amendment]]. No other Justice on the Court joined that concurrence. Only Thomas has expressed disagreement with the "aggregation principle" used to expand [[federal]] power based on the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>[[United States v. Lopez]], 514 U.S. 549, 600, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995) (concurring opinion).</ref>

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in ''United States v. Playboy Entm't Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban." <ref>529 U.S. at 822-23.</ref> Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in ''United States v. Playboy Entm't Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."<ref>529 U.S. at 822-23.</ref> Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.

Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in ''[[Ashcroft v. ACLU]]'', 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] dissented.

Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in ''[[Ashcroft v. ACLU]]'', 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] dissented.

Thomas tends to oppose government power more often than Scalia does. In a 5-4 decision written by Thomas, from which Scalia dissented, Thomas held that the [[United States]] was wrong to seize $357,144 in cash from a traveler simply because he failed to report it as required by law. Thomas, writing for the Court, held that such a forfeiture "would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the [[Eighth Amendment]] ... because full forfeiture of respondent's currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense." <ref>''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998).</ref>

Thomas tends to oppose government power more often than Scalia does. In a 5-4 decision written by Thomas, from which Scalia dissented, Thomas held that the [[United States]] was wrong to seize $357,144 in cash from a traveler simply because he failed to report it as required by law. Thomas, writing for the Court, held that such a forfeiture "would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the [[Eighth Amendment]] ... because full forfeiture of respondent's currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense."<ref>''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998).</ref>

Thomas is more likely than Scalia to enforce a statute that is wrong as a matter of policy, as Thomas is more likely to hold that [[Congress]] alone can fix its own law.<ref>''[[Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC]], Inc.'', 546 U.S. 164 (2006).</ref>

Thomas is more likely than Scalia to enforce a statute that is wrong as a matter of policy, as Thomas is more likely to hold that [[Congress]] alone can fix its own law.<ref>''[[Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC]], Inc.'', 546 U.S. 164 (2006).</ref>

As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Thomas has mentored over 60 clerks. They include:

As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Thomas has mentored over 60 clerks. They include:

* [[Laura Ingraham]], [[conservative]] talk radio host <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/aboutlaura.jsp;jsessionid=5436967F38FA6C73A4D5804B1F165ABE |title=About Laura Ingraham |work=[[Laura Ingraham]] }}</ref>

* [[Laura Ingraham]], [[conservative]] talk radio host<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/aboutlaura.jsp;jsessionid=5436967F38FA6C73A4D5804B1F165ABE |title=About Laura Ingraham |work=[[Laura Ingraham]] }}</ref>

* Wendy Long, senior legal advisor and vice chair of [[Mitt Romney]]'s National Faith and Values Steering Committee <ref>{{cite web |last1=Rubin |first1=Jennifer |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505233532/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799 |title=Judging Mitt |work=[[American Spectator]] |date=July 30, 2007 }}</ref>

* Wendy Long, senior legal advisor and vice chair of [[Mitt Romney]]'s National Faith and Values Steering Committee<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rubin |first1=Jennifer |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505233532/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799 |title=Judging Mitt |work=[[American Spectator]] |date=July 30, 2007 }}</ref>

* Professor Steven McAllister, [[University of Kansas]] School of Law

* Professor Steven McAllister, [[University of Kansas]] School of Law