NewYou can listen to Fox News articles now!
Clarence Thomas has tried to return U.S. law to the independent promulgation of the establishment promise that individuals should be Being judged as an individual Instead of being a member Race, gender or race. It seems that his colleagues in the High Court have been listening.
Thomas’ belief in individual rights was before his time in court. For example, in the 1985 Legal Review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibility, namely, to enforce American civil rights laws. “I intend to bring EEO enforcement back to defend the rights of individuals who have been harmed by discriminatory practices. … Those insisting on the principle of equal opportunity (the cornerstone of civil rights) means that preferences for certain groups represent their preferences as moral and moral leaders in this region,” he wrote.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled the straightforward women in Ohio, who claimed discrimination
Justice Thomas reiterated that during his thirty years at the National Supreme Court, U.S. law protected individuals rather than groups’ rights. For example, in Missouri v. Jenkins v. Jenkins in 1995, Thomas became the first Supreme Court Justice to directly criticize Brown v. Education Commission (1954). Although he called the state-mandated segregation “meaning”, he said the court was wrong in 1954, relying on controversial social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking “constitutional principles” that the government must regard citizens as individuals, not members of a race, racial or religious group. ”
Close friends of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas believe that Democrats and media members are trying to urge him to withdraw his decision whether former President Trump should be withdrawn from the main vote in Colorado. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Justice Thomas made similar statements in many other judicial opinions. His consent to the Parents v. District 1, who participated in Community Schools in 2007 was probably his strongest expression of the notion of equality: “Dissment attempts to marginalize the concept of color composition by entrusting me and today’s diverse members tolerate classes among citizens.’”
Recently, Justice Thomas wrote in his consent in the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment that universities and universities cannot consider racialization in the decision to admit, i.e., “though I am painfully aware of the social and economic destruction that has suffered my race, those people who have suffered my race and all who have suffered discrimination, and I adhere to the principles of this country, which is so clear that its balance of unity: unity is independent, unity is independent, and independent, and independent, and independent, and independent, and independent, and independent. Equal citizens must be treated equally before the law. ”
Deputy Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote his opinion in Ames v. Ohio Youth Services. (AP Photo/J. ScottApplewhite, file)
The Supreme Court ruled last week in AMES v. Ohio Youth Services that supporters of diversity, equity and inclusion programs should stop pretending they comply with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the “background circumstances” rule imposed by several lower courts of appealing requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidence standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court’s anti-discrimination precedents.
Click here for more Fox News comments
Judge Jackson’s opinion on the court’s reversal of the lower court may also be written by Judge Thomas himself. Judge Jackson quoted the text of Chapter 7, which made it illegal to take adverse employment actions against “any individual.” She further cites the 2020 Supreme Court ruling Bostock v. Clayton County, which ruled that “the law is concerned about individuals rather than groups, not anything academically.” She added: “By establishing the same protection for each “individual” – without taking into account that individual membership in a minority or majority group, Congress has no room for the court to make special claims for plaintiffs who only have a majority group.”
Justice Thomas joined Judge Jackson’s opinion on the court. But he also expressed his consent, suggesting that the “background situation” rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII, but also “is obviously inconsistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” For current purposes, Thomas is most important, if Dei’s supporters want Ames’ decision to have nothing to do with their DEI plan, then they will be a huge mistake. “U.S. employers have long been trapped in ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ programs and affirmative action plans,” he wrote. “This kind of initiative often leads to obvious discrimination against those considered to be the majority.”
Click here to get the Fox News app
When Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, court observers openly speculated who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas undoubtedly fills the role. After all, at Ames, even Justice Thomas’s free colleagues in the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledge that U.S. law protects individual rights rather than group rights.
Click here for more information about Scott Douglas Gerber
