Though six other Justices joined in overturning Staples' conviction, it was Justice Thomas who wrote the majority opinion, and he makes it clear that anything not explicitly allowed or made illegal by the law -- either in the Government's actions or in the actions of individual citizens -- is left to individual (or local, it is implied) discretion (Oyez 2009).
How Do You Get to the Supreme Court? Restraint, Restraint, Restraint
In keeping with his generally conservative politics, Justice Thomas is also an advocate of judicial restraint. The Staples case demonstrates this quite clearly, as do other of his published rulings. In Archer et ux v. Warner (2002), Justice Thomas dissented form the majority opinion, which used what was considered the intent of a bankruptcy exemption for fraud to overturn the decisions of lower courts and demand that the Warners pay the Archers a previously agreed-upon settlement (Oyez 2009). In his dissent, Justice Thomas makes it very clear that he believes the law needs to speak explicitly for itself, and the he considered the majority opinion of the Court as a form of activism, whereby laws were extended and amplified but the decision, rather than rigidly upheld (Oyez 2009).
This view is also quite evident when it comes to Justice Thomas' interpretation of the Constitution, as is the Supreme Court's primary duty in the schema of the judicial system. Again, his dissenting opinion in a particular case, Jones v. Flowers (2005), makes this quite clear. Having repeatedly mailed property tax bills and notices to a home that Jones owned but no longer occupied, his home was eventually sold to the state of Arkansas (in the person of Flowers). The Court ruled that the state had not fulfilled its duties under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that it should have made extra effort in this regard. Again, Justice Thomas felt that any body of law, especially the Constitution, should be read as narrowly and explicitly as possible, and that Arkansas had therefore...
He is often either in the vast majority or the unanimity of the Court's opinion, or in a very small minority (often a minority of one). There are few of his rulings, therefore, that have led to large changes in policy and could be considered especially significant as far as Court opinions go, and his determined reticence during oral arguments before the Court is nearly a thing of legend (Klonick 2009). It is the reserve and restraint of Justice Thomas' opinions that make them significant, and that demonstrate his significance as a Justice, and this quite explicitly does not lead to opinions that stand out or create large amounts of change in policy or law.
Justice Clarence Thomas is, of course, a highly significant member of the Supreme Court. As one of the most -- if not the most -- conservative Justices currently sitting, his opinions have been used with great regularity on issues that the Court agrees require a strict and certain application of the law and the Constitution. Despite the controversy surrounding his confirmation and possible political quibbles, Justice Thomas has shown himself to be a man truly dedicated to his principles, and he applies them evenly in deciding cases. This independence and objectivity are essential qualities in a Supreme Court Justice.
Fraser, N. (1992). "Sex, lies, and the public sphere: Some reflections on the confirmation of Clarence Thomas." Critical inquiry 18(3), pp. 595-612.
Gerber, S. (1999). First principles: The jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas. New York: New York University Press.
Klonick, K. (2009). "Clarence Thomas reaches new low in self-awareness." Accessed 26 October 2009. http://trueslant.com/kateklonick/2009/10/24/clarence-thomas-reaches-new-low-in-self-awareness/
Overby, L; Henschen, B.; Walsh, M. & Strauss, J. (1992). "Courting constituents? An analysis of the Senate confirmation vote on Justice Clarence Thomas." American political science review, 86(4), pp. 997-1003.
Oyez. (2009). "Clarence Thomas: Opinions." http://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas&sub=opinions
Thomas, C. (1999). "On…
Jurisprudence As a theory in law, Jurisprudence involves varying philosophical perceptions about the purposes of law, the legal system and the institutions developed to regulate law. In an effort to understand the basic, fundamental reasoning for law and of legal systems, legal scholars have developed theoretical frameworks within the umbra of jurisprudence. For the purposes of this paper, jurisprudential philosophies will include natural law, legal positivism and constructivist theories of law. Aristotle,
but, according to all other fuqah?', it should be transferred to the public treasury, because it belongs to the Muslims. According to Sh-fi ), the Muslims inherit it on the grounds of their being members of the same group (alta s-b); Ab? Han-fa agrees, on the basis of one of the two traditions reported by him (which includes Sh-fi's opinion), although the other tradition grounds it on friendship (muw-l-t), not
Johnson v Transportation Agency (1986) The two above cases both resulted in a broadening of the scopes and protections of the Civil Rights Act via jurisprudence. In Johnson v Transportation Agency (1986), a very different result was reached that shows the changing nature and understanding of discrimination and how it work in society. The difference in this case is also directly and explicitly related to the differences in the original plaintiffs
Upon becoming a paralegal, I may then begin to make use of the administrative and organizational skills I already possess to enhance my knowledge of the law. Further, other than my many years of experience in administrative positions, I have the advantage of many years in the military in general. Essentially, the law is a vast set of rules to be applied evenly and fairly across varying cultures. The military
Dworkin Jurisprudence The rule of law entails the practical manifestation of our social and philosophical ideals: the rule of law is ideals in action. The rule of law allows public standards to be applied to personal behaviors. The rule of law also requires the proper exercise of power by a governing body. The government enforces the law, but no individual is above the law. The principles of law include the following. The
One criticism is that the corporate and business world is more concerned with self-interest rather then ethics and human rights. "Corporate America, upon which much of the burden of economic growth depends, does what is good for itself. Such self-interest has had the effect of barring women from most executive suites and maintaining status quo gender roles...." (Gibelman, 2003. p 22) This is an aspect which, in combination with