Clarence Thomas’s particular person rights imaginative and prescient beneficial properties assist in Supreme Courtroom

[ad_1] NEW Now you can take heed to Fox Information articles!

Clarence Thomas has spent his skilled life attempting to return American regulation to the Declaration of Independence’s founding promise that people must be judged as individuals somewhat than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups . It appears that evidently his friends on the excessive court docket have been listening.

Thomas' perception in particular person rights precedes his time on the court docket. For instance, in a 1985 regulation evaluation article, Thomas mentioned his day by day tasks of imposing the nation’s civil rights legal guidelines as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement again to the place it began by defending the rights of people who're damage by discriminatory practices. … Those that insist on arguing that the precept of equal alternative, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for sure teams have relinquished their roles as ethical and moral leaders on this space."

SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATION

Justice Thomas has reiterated that American regulation protects particular person somewhat than teams rights all through his three-and-a-half many years on the nation’s highest court docket. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, as an example, Thomas grew to become the primary Supreme Courtroom justice to instantly criticize Brown v. Board of Training (1954). Though he referred to as state-mandated segregation "despicable," he stated that the Courtroom was flawed in 1954 to depend on disputable social science proof to declare segregation unconstitutional somewhat than invoking the "constitutional precept" that "the federal government should deal with residents as people, and never as members of racial, ethnic or non secular teams."

An in depth buddy of Supreme Courtroom Justice Clarence Thomas believes it’s absurd that Democrats and media members are attempting to stress him to recuse himself from deciding whether or not former President Trump must be faraway from Colorado's main poll. (Drew Angerer/Getty Pictures)

Justice Thomas has made comparable pronouncements in lots of different judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Mother and father Concerned in Group Faculties v. Seattle Faculty District No. 1 is probably the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent makes an attempt to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Structure by consigning it to me and Members of right now’s plurality. … However I'm fairly snug within the firm I hold. My view of the Structure is Justice Harlan’s view in Plessy: ‘Our Structure is color-blind, and neither is aware of nor tolerates courses amongst residents.’"

Extra not too long ago, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion within the Supreme Courtroom’s 2023 selections holding that faculties and universities can not take into account race in admissions selections that "Whereas I'm painfully conscious of the social and financial ravages which have befallen my race and all who are suffering discrimination, I maintain out enduring hope that this nation will dwell as much as its rules so clearly enunciated within the Declaration of Independence and the Structure of the US: that each one males are created equal, are equal residents, and have to be handled equally earlier than the regulation."

Affiliate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the opinion in Ames v. Ohio Division of Youth Providers. (AP Photograph/J. Scott Applewhite, File )

Final week’s Supreme Courtroom determination in Ames v. Ohio Division of Youth Providers indicators that proponents of variety, fairness, and inclusion packages ought to cease pretending that they're complying with the regulation. In spite of everything, one of the liberal members of the Courtroom, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Courtroom that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by a number of decrease courts of attraction requiring members of a majority group to fulfill a heightened evidentiary commonplace to prevail on a Title VII discrimination declare is inconsistent with the textual content of Title VII and the Supreme Courtroom’s anti-discrimination precedents.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Courtroom reversing the decrease courts may as nicely have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the textual content of Title VII that makes it unlawful to take an hostile employment motion towards "any particular person." She additional quoted a 2020 Supreme Courtroom determination, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "regulation’s give attention to people somewhat than teams [is] something however educational." She added: "By establishing the identical protections for each ‘particular person’—with out regard to that particular person’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose particular necessities on majority-group plaintiffs alone."

Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Courtroom "in full." However he additionally issued a concurring opinion by which he instructed that the "background circumstances" rule will not be solely inconsistent with the statutory textual content of Title VII however is "plainly at odds with the Structure’s assure of equal safety." Most necessary for current functions, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames determination has nothing to do with their DEI packages, they're sorely mistaken. "American employers have lengthy been ‘obsessed’ with ‘variety, fairness, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative motion plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this sort have typically led to overt discrimination towards these perceived to be within the majority."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Courtroom watchers brazenly speculated about who would change him because the mental chief of the conservative authorized motion. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably crammed that position. In spite of everything, in Ames even Justice Thomas’s liberal colleagues on the nation’s highest court docket conceded that American regulation protects particular person somewhat than group rights.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM SCOTT DOUGLAS GERBER

Scott Douglas Gerber is the creator of, amongst different books, "First Rules: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas." He's presently finishing a authorized thriller entitled "The Trafficker: A Novel."