Changes

== 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]]'' and both reject the existence of a [[Negative Commerce Clause]].  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 has not rejected that line of cases or a constitutional right of parents in some limited cases.<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]]'' and both reject the existence of a [[Negative Commerce Clause]].  But these Justices have significant differences.  Through the 2006-2007 term, Justice Thomas had written 252 concurrences or dissents, of which Justice Scalia had joined about 2/3rds.  Conversely, Justice Scalia had written 480 concurrences or dissents (he has served more years on the Court), of which Justice Thomas had joined about half.

 

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 has not rejected that line of cases or a constitutional right of parents in some limited cases.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref>

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.