City Journal has a fascinating article about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his impact on the court, especially his believe in the "originalism" view of interpreting the Constitution and his rejection of the liberal view of the Constitution as a "living document."
Sixteen years after the Left tried to destroy Thomas with Anita Hill's fabrications, he's proving to be one of the best justices on the Supreme Court. The Left still hates him, so you know he's doing a good job.
Thomas has quietly proved himself to be a serious constitutional thinker, who displays—for those sympathetic with his conservative jurisprudence, anyway—both great independence and considerable wisdom. Thomas forcefully rejects the notion, long favored by liberals, that the Constitution is a “living document” and that Supreme Court justices should creatively adjust the meaning of its terms to afford more protection to minorities, to invent such unenumerated rights as the “right to privacy,” and in general to promote “progressive” ends that the Left can’t seem to win at the ballot box. Instead, he has become the Court’s most persuasive exponent of “originalism”—the view that justices should interpret the Constitution as meaning what it did to those who read the document when it was framed. Since originalism is the jurisprudence most compatible with our republican form of government and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, it’s looking as though the first President Bush got it right after all when he declared, upon nominating Thomas, that he was “the best man for the job.”
Read the whole thing.
Comment Preview