{"id":345,"date":"2023-04-20T07:40:00","date_gmt":"2023-04-20T05:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.site.cdcl.xyz\/2023\/04\/20\/que-retenir-de-ce-texte-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-moves-to-reverse-the-legacy-of-his-predecessor-thurgood-marshall\/"},"modified":"2023-04-20T07:40:00","modified_gmt":"2023-04-20T05:40:00","slug":"que-retenir-de-ce-texte-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-moves-to-reverse-the-legacy-of-his-predecessor-thurgood-marshall","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centresaintebarbe.fr\/blog\/que-retenir-de-ce-texte-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-moves-to-reverse-the-legacy-of-his-predecessor-thurgood-marshall\/","title":{"rendered":"Que retenir de ce texte : Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas moves to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall"},"content":{"rendered":"
A relever, cet \u00e9ditorial sur le web dont la th\u00e9matique est \u00ab la justice \u00bb et qui a des chances de vous r\u00e9jouir.<\/p>\n
Son titre (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas moves to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall) en dit long.<\/p>\n
Annonc\u00e9 sous la signature \u00abd\u2019anonymat
\u00bb, le pigiste est positivement connu.<\/p>\n
Il n\u2019y a pas de raison de douter du s\u00e9rieux de ces infos.<\/p>\n
Le texte a \u00e9t\u00e9 diffus\u00e9 \u00e0 une date indiqu\u00e9e 2023-04-20 07:40:00.<\/p>\n
As public attention focuses on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019 close personal and financial relationship with a politically active conservative billionaire, the scrutiny is overlooking a key role Thomas has played for nearly three decades on the nation\u2019s highest court.<\/p>\n
Thomas\u2019 predecessor on the court, Thurgood Marshall, was a civil rights lawyer before becoming a justice. In 1991, in his final opinion before retiring after a quarter century on the court, Marshall warned that his fellow justices\u2019 growing appetite to revisit \u2013 and reverse \u2013 prior decisions would ultimately \u201csquander the authority and legitimacy of this Court as a protector of the powerless.\u201d <\/p>\n
His prediction has been quoted by Supreme Court decisions since, including a three-justice dissent from the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization ruling that declared there was no constitutional right to reproductive choice and overturned Roe v. Wade.<\/p>\n
In his concurrence with the majority decision in that case, Thomas declared his opposition to Marshall\u2019s principle, lamenting that the court had not done more to pare back its prior work. \u201cIn future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court\u2019s substantive due process precedents,\u201d Thomas wrote \u2013 directly implicating Americans\u2019 rights to sexual privacy and same-sex marriage.<\/p>\n
Throughout Thomas\u2019 tenure he has pushed the Supreme Court to revisit prior decisions that embraced robust rights for society\u2019s most vulnerable, and to replace Marshall\u2019s vision with one more amenable to the powerful than the powerless. And in writing my book tracing the lives and work of both justices, I have seen the fruits of this effort multiply over the past decade.<\/p>\n
Few phrases could so aptly capture Thurgood Marshall\u2019s vision of the court\u2019s work as \u201cprotector of the powerless.\u201d And few, if any, Americans have done as much to make that vision a reality. <\/p>\n
Marshall\u2019s work to advance Black citizenship is well known, but he also fought for expanded rights for women and the indigent, the accused and convicted, adherents to marginalized religions and those with unpopular viewpoints.<\/p>\n
At the root of Marshall\u2019s jurisprudence was a hope that while law could be a powerful tool of oppression, it might also be a shield. <\/p>\n
As he wrote in that final dissent, in Payne v. Tennessee, enforcement of constitutional rights \u201cfrequently requires this Court to rein in the forces of democratic politics,\u201d to protect the powerless from the tyranny of the majority.<\/p>\n
While his Payne dissent criticized the court for reversing itself, Marshall was no stranger to calling for reconsideration of established law. Marshall\u2019s signature accomplishment as a lawyer in Brown v. Board of Education was to convince the court to overturn the doctrine of separate but equal that had emerged after the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision. <\/p>\n As a justice, Marshall argued passionately and repeatedly that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, leading to a brief period where it was considered unconstitutional.<\/p>\n The distinction between Marshall and Thomas is not really about whether the court should reverse past decisions but simply which ones. <\/p>\n While Marshall willed the court to become a \u201cprotector of the powerless,\u201d Thomas has, I believe, argued not only to scale that vision back, but to advance the interests of the powerful.<\/p>\n While last summer\u2019s abortion decision is an obvious example, Thomas has led the court\u2019s assault on precedent in other areas as well. <\/p>\n For example, years before the court invalidated portions of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, Thomas had argued that the lack of modern voting discrimination made the act unnecessary. <\/p>\n Similarly, recent decisions have followed Thomas\u2019 lead in weakening the vitality of the First Amendment\u2019s Establishment Clause, which fortifies the separation between church and state. <\/p>\n Thomas has even called for the court to reconsider its ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a constitutional right to a lawyer for indigent criminal defendants. <\/p>\n In each case, it is the powerless who stand to be most significantly affected. <\/p>\n Those in need of constitutional protection in Thomas\u2019 view are more likely to be property owners, corporations making campaign contributions or gun owners.<\/p>\n Perhaps no topic better captures the distinction between the two men\u2019s views than affirmative action, which the court is considering in a pair of cases from Harvard and the University of North Carolina to be decided this term.<\/p>\n The distrust of government that fuels many of Thomas\u2019 perspectives is never more personal than in cases about the use of race in college admissions. He has railed against affirmative action, saying it brands Black people in prominent positions with a \u201cstigma\u201d about \u201cwhether their skin color played a part in their advancement.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed, Thomas claims his position requiring colorblindness is a better path toward full Black citizenship. He has made that claim even in situations where he knew it would result in more limited access to opportunities for Black students in the short term.<\/p>\n Marshall always looked at the issue from a different perspective, arguing that access to opportunities was essential not only for the Black students affected but for the nation at large. <\/p>\n \u201cIf we are ever to become a fully integrated society, one in which the color of a person\u2019s skin will not determine the opportunities available to him or her,\u201d Marshall wrote in 1977, \u201cwe must be willing to take steps to open those doors.\u201d<\/p>\n It was access for the powerless that Marshall thought ought drive the thinking of the court.<\/p>\n But this summer, the court may finally embrace a different vision on affirmative action, coming again to a position Thomas has been advocating for decades. <\/p>\n That turn would be yet another reversal squandering Marshall\u2019s vision of the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Ce sujet r\u00e9pond \u00e0 vos questions vous aimerez aussi ces livres:<\/p>\n \u00c9tude historique sur l\u2019organisation de la justice dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 et les temps modernes\/01,(la couverture) <\/a><\/span>. Disponible \u00e0 l\u2019achat sur les plateformes Amazon, Fnac, Cultura \u2026.<\/p>\n Les r\u00e9surrections: Justice p\u00e9nale et erreurs judiciaires en Chine,Le livre <\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n Quelle justice pour les mineurs ?,Le livre <\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A relever, cet \u00e9ditorial sur le web dont la th\u00e9matique est \u00ab la justice \u00bb et qui a des chances de vous r\u00e9jouir. Son titre (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas moves to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall) en dit long. Annonc\u00e9 sous la signature \u00abd\u2019anonymat\u00bb, le pigiste est positivement connu. Il n\u2019y a pas… Poursuivre la lecture Que retenir de ce texte : Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas moves to reverse the legacy of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":668,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-histoire-du-droit-et-de-la-loi","entry"],"yoast_head":"\n
<\/div>
Bettmann via Getty Images<\/span>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nPower as a key factor<\/h2>\n
On affirmative action<\/h2>\n