Changes

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.

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.

Justice Thomas has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Justice Scalia has.  Justice Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Justice 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 Justice 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>

Justice Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Justice Scalia has.  Justice Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Justice 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 Justice 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. 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.

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ 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.