Clarence Thomas on Government Reform Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. Bush Sr. 1991)

Executive privilege applies to Trump's Jan. 6 documents

When the archivist notified Trump that he would turn over records, Trump claimed executive privilege over some of the documents, including diaries, schedules, and visitor and call logs. But Biden countered that the documents should not be shielded by executive privilege, prompting Trump to go to court. The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion that Jackson joined, upheld that ruling. Trump then went to the Supreme Court, which on Jan. 19 turned down Trump's request to stop the release of the documents. Only Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that he disagreed with the court's decision.

AZ mail-in restrictions don't violate Voting Rights Act

Dissenters argued that the Court's narrow reading weakened the law and disregarded its intent to address disparities in how election laws affect different racial groups. The rule discarding "out of precinct votes" impacted black and Hispanic voters, with Arizona leading the country in discarding such votes. Restrictions on vote collection makes voting more difficult for Native Americans.

Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court. John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred.

No curbside voting during pandemic; keep existing rules

"Alabama is again able to enforce laws that help ensure the fairness and integrity of our elections," Alabama's Republican Attorney General said. A District Judge issued a preliminary injunction after finding that Alabama's election rules will cause sick or elderly voters to "likely face a painful and difficult choice between exercising their right to vote and safeguarding their health, which could prevent them from casting a vote in upcoming elections." Alabama appealed the decision. The state argued that it would be confusing to change absentee ballot rules.

Federal control over state voting is unconstitutional

OnTheIssues explanation: This ruling led to a spate of "Voter ID" laws, which proponents claim is needed to protect the integrity of the vote, and which opponents say discriminates against youth & minority voters.

Opinions:Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, & Alito; concurrence: Thomas; dissent: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan.

Regulating commerce does not encompass 50 states' laws

It seems to me that the power to regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress regulate such matters is in need of reexamination.

In an appropriate case, I believe that we must further reconsider our "substantial effects" test with an eye toward constructing a standard that reflects the text and history of the Commerce Clause without totally rejecting our more recent Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

If Congress could regulate all commerce, why enumerate?

Put simply, much if not all of Article 1 Section 8 would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation that makes Artilcle 1 Section 8 superfluous cannot be correct.

1980: Voted for Reagan & against ever-larger government

Judge's role is to interpret law, not to make policy choices

As I reflected on the long, unpleasant process that had led up to this brief public performance, I was struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights.

Given my initial ambivalence about becoming a judge, I was surprised to find that I liked the job. Part of what made it so agreeable was that I got along so well with most of my new colleagues.

"What is my role, in this case--as a judge?" The role of a judge is to interpret and apply the choices made in the legislative and executive branches. Not to make policy choices of his own.

Opposed the Voting Rights Act & affirmative action

The National Urban League withheld its opposition, but the board of directors of the NAACP voted 49-1 to oppose; the AFL-CIO Executive Council voted 35-0 to oppose; the NOW officers and convention delegates voted unanimously to oppose; and the black National Bar Association voted to oppose.

Candidates' political speech is at core of First Amendment

Limited role for courts; narrow Constitional interpretation

Thomas, sees limited role for the court; reads constitutional guarantees narrowly.

Judges should not impose their will, but just interpret law

JUDGE THOMAS: The role of a judge is a limited one. It is to interpret the intent of Congress, the legislation of Congress, to apply that in specific cases, and to interpret the Constitution, where called upon, but at no point to impose his or her will or his or her opinion in that process, but, rather, to go to the traditional tools of constitutional interpretation or adjudication, as well as to statutory construction.

Corporate political spending is free speech.

Prior to the 2008 primary elections, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to educating the American public about their rights and the government, produced a politically conservative 90-minute documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie. This documentary covers Hillary Clinton's record while in the Senate & the White House. However, The Movie falls within the definition of "electioneering communications" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA")--a federal enactment designed to prevent "big money" from unfairly influencing federal elections--which, among other things, prohibits corporate financing of electioneering communications. The FEC [enforced the provision] of BCRA prohibiting corporations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election. [The Supreme Court rules that this] violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Kennedy , Opinion of the Court (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas concurring):

Some members of the public might consider "Hillary: The Movie" to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation's course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.

Justice Stevens (dissent joined by Ginsburg , Breyer, and Sotomayor)

Neither Citizens United's nor any other corporation's speech has been "banned." All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment [allows that] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Although I concur in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions, I emphatically dissent from its principal holding.

Public campaign finance can't be based on opponent spending.

An Arizona public campaign financing law allowed a person who agreed to the restrictions of a publicly financed campaign to receive an initial allotment from the state. That initial allotment was increased when the spending of a privately financed opponent together with the spending of any independent group exceeded that initial allotment. The public funds to match opponent expenditures topped out at two times the initial allotment.

HELD: Delivered by Roberts; joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas & Alito

DISSENT: Kagan dissents; joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor