| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | == Comparison with Justice Scalia == | | == Comparison with Justice Scalia == |
| | | | |
| − | Justice Thomas is most often compared to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], as both support overturning ''[Roe v. Wade]''. But these Justices have significant differences. For example, Justice Scalia typically rejects the use of legislative history more often than Justice Thomas does. Justice Scalia also rejects the important line of cases establishing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, while Justice Thomas does not.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref> | + | Justice Thomas is most often compared to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], as both support overturning ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''. But these Justices have significant differences. For example, Justice Scalia typically rejects the use of legislative history more often than Justice Thomas does. Justice Scalia also rejects the important line of cases establishing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, ''see [[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'', while Justice Thomas does not reject a constitutional right of parents.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | Their most significant difference is perhaps on the issue of free speech and pornography. Justice 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> Justice Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.
| + | Justice Thomas takes a broader view of state sovereignty over intrastate activities against encroachment by the federal government. In ''Gonzales v. Raich'', 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Justice Thomas dissented from the Court opinion that upheld a federal law that interfered with California's legalization of marijuana for alleged medical purposes. In other words, Justice Thomas felt that the federal government lacked the power to interfere with state sovereignty over this intrastate activity. Justice Scalia, in contrast, joined the majority of the Court in upholding application of federal law to destroy marijuana plants grown lawfully under California law. |
| | + | |
| | + | The most significant difference between Justices Thomas and Scalia is perhaps on the issue of free speech and pornography. Justice 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> Justice Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television. |
| | | | |
| | Justice 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. Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Breyer dissented. | | Justice 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. Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Breyer dissented. |