cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

Horrifying. A more apt title might be something like
"The United States Most Dangerous Activist Judge".


-- cary

Yes and who is yelling the loudest about activist judges?

The theocrats ought to read their Bible more often Like maybe the part
that talks about seeing a speck in the others eye wile being blind to the
railroad tie on your own LOL

THEOCRACY IN ACTION

Irrelevant with regards to title but important as insight into Thomas


Will Clarence Thomas Be the Court's Next Chief Justice?
Why It's Very Unlikely That Bush's Advisors Will Ultimately Recommend His
Nomination
By EDWARD LAZARUS
elazarus@findlaw.com
----
Thursday, Jan. 06, 2005
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050106.html
[EXCERPT]

Additional Years on the Court Have Proven Thomas Is Not a "Scalia Clone"

It is also wrong to suggest that Thomas is a Scalia clone (though this
description was more apt in Thomas's first few years at the Court). To
the
contrary, in recent years, Thomas seems very self-consciously to have
staked out a position distinctly to the right of Scalia on numerous
issues.

Last term, for example, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
(the
Pledge of Allegiance case), Thomas broke from Scalia's already
conservative
position favoring a more modest separation of Church and State. Thomas's
view is much more extreme - so much so, that no other justice in the
modern
era has taken this view.

Thomas declares that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (which
creates the Church/State separation) applies only to the federal
government, and not to the fifty states. As a result, according to
Thomas's
view, states are not prohibited from establishing a religion, as long as
they do not violate citizens' rights - such as their First Amendment
rights
to the free exercise of their religion in doing so.

Thomas's View on Stare Decisis: Refusing To Give Court Precedent Weight

The growing distinction between Thomas and Scalia, moreover, is not
merely
that they reach some different substantive conclusions. Rather, Thomas
and
Scalia diverge over one of the most basic issues of judicial philosophy -
the issue of stare decisis. ("Stare decisis" - Latin for "let the
decision
stand" -- is the legal term for the deference a judge should give to past
decisions, even those he deems erroneous, in order to maintain continuity
in the law.)

In a recent biography of Clarence Thomas, Scalia himself made the point.
Thomas, Scalia commented, "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." If
Thomas thinks a decision is wrong, that's the end of the analysis; it
should be overturned. "I wouldn't do that," Scalia continued.

Thomas's record on the Court bears out Scalia's observation. Thomas has
authored a slew of solo opinions (thirty-five, by one count) expressing a
willingness to re-examine a wide range of well-established precedents.

The best known example is Thomas's 1995 concurrence in United States v.
Lopez. There, Thomas indicated his interest in reversing the sixty years
of
Commerce Clause jurisprudence - despite the fact that these precedents
undergird the federal government's protection of civil rights, worker
safety, and the environment.

No precedent is untouchable under Thomas's approach. A few years ago,
Thomas even questioned Calder v. Bull, a touchstone of retroactivity law
since 1798.

Thomas's approach to stare decisis, and the positions to which this
approach leads him, make Thomas an outlier on this Court. His
conservatism
- which leads more liberal justices to decline to join his opinions - is
well-publicized. But his idiosyncrasy - which leads even his conservative
colleagues to force him to write alone - is much less remarked.
[END OF EXCERPT]

***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS á Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************