Thurgood Marshall vs. Clarence Thomas: Two Justices on Race

Introduction: Two Justices, One Seat

Ever since Clarence Thomas, a conservative, replaced Thurgood Marshall, a liberal, on the United States Supreme Court in 1991, there has been constant comparison between the two African-American justices.

In June 2005, Thomas again drew attention and renewed comparison to Marshall concerning two Supreme Court decisions. Thomas was one of three justices who disagreed when the Court ruled that a Texas killer's rights were compromised when prosecutors removed all but one African-American from the jury. In another case, the Court stopped California from making it harder for defendants to have their claims of racial bias in jury selection investigated, and Thomas—the Court's only Black member—was the only justice to dissent.

These cases were public reminders of Thomas's status as the Court's toughest critic of racial discrimination claims, and one of America's more enigmatic public figures. Although he grew up in the South during the years of segregation and has admitted to being a victim of discrimination firsthand, he has consistently made it more difficult for Black people and other minorities to obtain relief from bigotry.

Thomas's speeches and writings suggest that he believes African-Americans rely on discrimination too often as a crutch, and should do more to advance themselves despite the obstacles they encounter. Thomas echoes the views of many Black conservatives who feel the nation's Black leadership embraces a culture of "victimology, personal grievances and separatism," and that this approach simply does not work.

Clarence Thomas: Judicial Philosophy and Approach to Race

Thomas has expressed that as a young man, he did not realize he could counter the discrimination he faced—particularly at a Missouri divinity school and from prospective employers in Georgia after graduating from Yale Law School—with resolve rather than complaint. Over time, however, he learned to "accept life on its own terms."

He told a law school graduating class in 2003 that he felt like giving up "a hundred times a day … There will be days when you believe you can't take it anymore … But those days are just part of life," and implored the graduates to be "heroes" rather than "victims" and to do their best regardless of the obstacles they face.

Another factor relevant to his recent rulings is that Thomas is known to have little sympathy for criminal defendants who claim technical or procedural problems with their convictions, and he does not favor criminals claiming they were victims of racism at their trials. In both of the June 2005 cases, the defendants had been convicted of heinous murders; one had killed a small child.

During his fourteen years on the Court at that point, Thomas had earned a reputation as a solid conservative who is strong on asserting state authority over federal power and narrow in his interpretation of the individual rights the Constitution protects. He impressed many who, at the time of his nomination, thought him unqualified for the position; his work in several areas demonstrated a sharp legal mind and a disciplined approach to constitutional interpretation. However, his views on race transcend ordinary court politics, and he very often distinguishes his voice from others—leaving him at odds even with his conservative colleagues. Thomas frequently adopts a singularly unsympathetic stance on cases that define when and how the Constitution prohibits racial discrimination.

Thurgood Marshall: Civil Rights Pioneer and Supreme Court Legacy

Thomas is a stark contrast to his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall, the Supreme Court's first African-American member. A civil rights lawyer before joining the Court, Marshall argued Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in public schools, and he often led other justices to a deeper understanding of the effects of racism and bigotry in the United States.

Born in 1908 in Baltimore, Maryland, the great-grandson of a slave, Marshall graduated as valedictorian from Howard University Law School in 1933 and soon began representing civil rights activists. He became counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1938 and chief counsel in 1940. Over the next twenty-three years, he won twenty-nine of the thirty-two major cases he undertook for that organization.

Among the precedent-setting cases Marshall successfully argued were Smith v. Allwright (1944), in which the Court declared Texas's exclusion of Black voters from primary elections unconstitutional; Sweatt v. Painter (1950), which declared "separate but equal" facilities for Black professionals and graduate students in state universities unconstitutional; and perhaps his most famous case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which racial segregation of American public schools was declared unconstitutional.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy nominated Marshall to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson named him United States Solicitor General, and in 1967 nominated him to the Supreme Court. In 1976, a Texas law school was renamed in honor of the distinguished jurist. Through the years, as the Court's makeup became more conservative, Marshall found himself increasingly isolated. When he retired in 1991 due to ill health, he was replaced by the conservative Clarence Thomas.

Conclusion: Comparing Two Icons

Thomas has many supporters who believe that he chooses his battles carefully, and when he engages, he does so with a clarity of purpose and vision all too rare in contemporary jurisprudence. Justice Thurgood Marshall is considered by any standard as one of the great Americans of his time and one of the shapers of history.

However, some question whether it is fair to hold Thomas to Marshall's standard, or whether it is itself a form of prejudice to assume that, by virtue of his life experience as a Black man in America, Thomas should think and react in a particular way. The comparison between the two men ultimately raises enduring questions about race, individual agency, legal philosophy, and what equal protection under the Constitution truly demands.