Clarence Thomas’s vision of personal rights gains support in the Supreme Court

Clarence Thomas spent his professional life trying to return American law to the promise of establishing an independence that individuals should be individuals I will be judged as an individual Not as a member of Race, gender, or ethnic group. His high court buddies seem to be listening.

Thomas’ belief in individual rights precedes his time in court. For example, in a 1985 legal review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibility for enforcing the country’s civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He writes: “I intend to return EEO enforcement to where it began by defending the rights of individuals who have been hurt by discriminatory practices. …Principles of equal opportunity, those who argue that the cornerstone of civil rights abandoned the preferences of certain groups of people’s role as moral and ethical leaders in this field.”

Supreme Court rules for supporting straight Ohio women who argued discrimination

Judge Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rights, not group rights, throughout the 30 and a half years in the National Supreme Court. For example, in Missouri vs Jenkins in 1995, Thomas became the first Supreme Court judge to directly criticize Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). He called the state-mandated separation “despicable,” but he stated in 1954 that he was wrong to resort to uncontroversial evidence of social science to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the “constitutional principle” that “the government must treat it as an individual, not as a member of a race, ethnic or religious group.”

Best friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas believes it’s ridiculous that Democrats and media members are trying to pressure President Trump to refuse to decide whether or not he should be excluded from the main Colorado vote. (Drew Anger/Getty Images)

Judge Thomas has made similar declarations in many other judicial opinions. His consent opinion vs. Seattle School District No. 1 in 2007, which was involved in community school, is perhaps the most powerful clarification of his concept of equality. Among the citizens. ”

More recently, Judge Thomas wrote in the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that universities and universities “have a hard-wed recognition of the social and economic destruction that befalls my race, but I hold a hope that I am struggling to praise all who are struggling with discrimination, yet clearly declared that this country is united, and that I am struggling to recognize the social and economic destruction that is struggling to my race, that I have to be treated equally before the law.”

Assistant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote his opinion for Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, file)

Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Youth Services shows that supporters of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Program should stop pretending to comply with the law. After all, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s most liberal members, wrote in the unanimous court that the “background situation” rule was imposed by several lower courts imposed by the appeal lower courts, which demanded members of the text of the VII identification claim, along with text consistent with the text of the ordinary court in discrimination claims in title VII.

For more information about Fox News, click here

Justice Jackson’s opinion of the court that overturned the lower court could have been written by Justice Thomas himself. Judge Jackson cited a text in Title VII that made it illegal to take employment measures that are unfavourable against “individuals.” She also wrote about Bostockv, the 2020 Supreme Court decision. Clayton County was quoted. This states that “law focuses on individuals, not groups.” She added: “By establishing the same protection for all ‘individuals’, the courts left no room for special requirements only for majority group plaintiffs, without considering the membership of individuals in minority or majority groups. ”

Judge Thomas joined Justice Jackson’s opinion on the court “completely.” However, he also issued a consensus opinion suggesting that the “background situation” rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory texts in Title VII, but is “clearly inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.” Most important for current purposes, Thomas made it clear that if Day’s supporters want Ames’ decisions to have nothing to do with their DEI program, they are very wrong. “For a long time, American employers have been “obsessed” with “diversity, equity, inclusion” initiatives and positive action plans,” he wrote. “This type of initiative has led to obvious discrimination against people who are often perceived as majority.”

Click here to get the Fox News app

When Judge Antonin Scalia passed away in 2016, court watchers openly speculated who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas definitely did the part. After all, in Ames, even a liberal colleague of Justice Thomas of the National Supreme Court, allowed American law to protect individuals rather than group rights.

For more information about Scott Douglas Gerber, click here