Is Clarence Thomas’ judicial philosophy totalitariansm?

[I’m not Stu]

He was the lone dissenter in the recent school student speech case. He thinks Reynolds v. Sims/Wesberry v. Sanders and NYT v. Sullivan should be overruled. He always sided with Trump. Is his philosophy nothing but totalitarianism?

[Mr. Reactionary]

None of the cases you cite show him as totalitarian. He is paternalistic on the rights of minors but was also 1 of 3 justices to oppose federal criminal charges for growing and consuming weed and opposed corporate eminent domain unlike corprocrat RBG.

[Donerail]

what is our working definition of "totalitariansm" here, b/c I suspect yours might be different from most

[MarkD]

First of all, if you want to cite examples of Clarence Thomas behaving like a totalitarian, you should point to his vote as a member of the Bush v. Gore majority and his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019).

Second, you've got it completely backwards to point to his view that Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims were wrongly decided as though making those interpretations of the Constitution would be totalitarian. The exact opposite is the truth. A totalitarian is someone who tries to seize total control of a governmental system. It was the Warren Court itself that took total control of how state governments must draw congressional districts and state legislative districts. If Thomas believes those decisions were wrong, then he believes the federal courts should defer to the state governments about how those governments want to draw districts. He wants to relinquish control, not to seize more control.

[I’m not Stu]

Isn’t wanting to kill American democracy forever totalitarian? Overruling Reynolds/Wesberry would do just that. What about thinking that the government can censor student speech outside of school?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Clarence Thomas's philosophy, as well as that of the contemporary American right in general, is agnostic on whether America should be a substantively democratic society or not; the question is orthogonal to their real priorities and interests. A strong argument can be made that such a tendency is present on the left as well, but if so, it isn't as problematic an issue because the existing countermajoritarian forces in the American system of government are currently captive to the right rather than to the left.

[MarkD]

Isn’t wanting to kill American democracy forever totalitarian? Overruling Reynolds/Wesberry would do just that. What about thinking that the government can censor student speech outside of school?

Taking your second point first, I didn't post here in order to get into any discussion about Clarence Thomas's views on the free speech rights of students.

But regarding your statements about Reynolds and Wesberry, .... you know, I've been seeing you post far-fetched exaggerations about some constitutional issues for almost five years now, and so it shouldn't surprise me when you spout off with more far-fetched exaggerations. But somehow, it DOES still surprise me when I see your the-sky-is-falling exaggerations. Tell me, if Clarence Thomas is a "totalitarian" for believing that those precedents were wrong and should be overturned, does it also make Justice John Marshall Harlan II a "totalitarian," since he dissented from those decisions? Was Felix Frankfurter a "totalitarian," given the opinions he wrote in Colegrove v. Green and Baker v. Carr? (According to your way of thinking, the Colegrove v. Green decision killed American democracy.)

And was the United State House of Representatives in a state of "totalitarianism" for 175 years before Wesberry v. Sanders, since no branch of the federal government was forcing state governments to draw congressional districts with approximately equal population in each district, and to redistrict every ten years, for any of the years from 1789 to 1964? Were all of the state legislatures "totalitarian" because they did not have approximately equal population in all state legislative districts -- in both chambers of every bicameral state legislature -- for those 175 years (and longer -- in other words, prior to 1789)?

[politicallefty]

But regarding your statements about Reynolds and Wesberry, .... you know, I've been seeing you post far-fetched exaggerations about some constitutional issues for almost five years now, and so it shouldn't surprise me when you spout off with more far-fetched exaggerations. But somehow, it DOES still surprise me when I see your the-sky-is-falling exaggerations. Tell me, if Clarence Thomas is a "totalitarian" for believing that those precedents were wrong and should be overturned, does it also make Justice John Marshall Harlan II a "totalitarian," since he dissented from those decisions? Was Felix Frankfurter a "totalitarian," given the opinions he wrote in Colegrove v. Green and Baker v. Carr? (According to your way of thinking, the Colegrove v. Green decision killed American democracy.)

And was the United State House of Representatives in a state of "totalitarianism" for 175 years before Wesberry v. Sanders, since no branch of the federal government was forcing state governments to draw congressional districts with approximately equal population in each district, and to redistrict every ten years, for any of the years from 1789 to 1964? Were all of the state legislatures "totalitarian" because they did not have approximately equal population in all state legislative districts -- in both chambers of every bicameral state legislature -- for those 175 years (and longer -- in other words, prior to 1789)?

It may not be totalitarianism, but I would argue that it is extremely undemocratic. Democracy was extraordinarily limited before the adoption of VRA. People will often group Reynolds and Wesberry together, but only the former was based on the Equal Protection Clause. While they both had the same Justices joining the majority opinion, Wesberry was based on Article I itself.

A large portion of this country was an effective apartheid state until a few decades ago. I see no reason to romanticize the past of this country, its laws, or the Constitution. It's one thing to think those decisions were wrong. Many states have not revised their constitutions or laws. If the Court were to overturn Reynolds, 40+ states would automatically have Republican state Senates. Overturning Wesberry would make today's gerrymandering child's play. The shackles of equal population is literally the only real restraint left on partisan gerrymandering (and establishing a literal permanent majority).

[I’m not Stu]

In the flag burning case, Texas v. Johnson, Scalia said flag burning is protected by the 1A. Does Thomas agree with Scalia and believe Texas v. Johnson was correctly decided?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

But regarding your statements about Reynolds and Wesberry, .... you know, I've been seeing you post far-fetched exaggerations about some constitutional issues for almost five years now, and so it shouldn't surprise me when you spout off with more far-fetched exaggerations. But somehow, it DOES still surprise me when I see your the-sky-is-falling exaggerations. Tell me, if Clarence Thomas is a "totalitarian" for believing that those precedents were wrong and should be overturned, does it also make Justice John Marshall Harlan II a "totalitarian," since he dissented from those decisions? Was Felix Frankfurter a "totalitarian," given the opinions he wrote in Colegrove v. Green and Baker v. Carr? (According to your way of thinking, the Colegrove v. Green decision killed American democracy.)

And was the United State House of Representatives in a state of "totalitarianism" for 175 years before Wesberry v. Sanders, since no branch of the federal government was forcing state governments to draw congressional districts with approximately equal population in each district, and to redistrict every ten years, for any of the years from 1789 to 1964? Were all of the state legislatures "totalitarian" because they did not have approximately equal population in all state legislative districts -- in both chambers of every bicameral state legislature -- for those 175 years (and longer -- in other words, prior to 1789)?

It may not be totalitarianism, but I would argue that it is extremely undemocratic. Democracy was extraordinarily limited before the adoption of VRA. People will often group Reynolds and Wesberry together, but only the former was based on the Equal Protection Clause. While they both had the same Justices joining the majority opinion, Wesberry was based on Article I itself.

A large portion of this country was an effective apartheid state until a few decades ago. I see no reason to romanticize the past of this country, its laws, or the Constitution. It's one thing to think those decisions were wrong. Many states have not revised their constitutions or laws. If the Court were to overturn Reynolds, 40+ states would automatically have Republican state Senates. Overturning Wesberry would make today's gerrymandering child's play. The shackles of equal population is literally the only real restraint left on partisan gerrymandering (and establishing a literal permanent majority).

This is blatantly untrue. The rest of this post is hardly worth responding to. You may be interested to know that even today in Canada, ridings will differ in population by as much as 5:1, and that historically many states, including the United Kingdom and Australia, also had vast malapportionments. While malapportionment was an issue pre Wesberry/Reynolds, it was by no means enough to make the US unrepublican, and voters have retained control of this country's government from the moment of its inception -- which certainly is something to be proud of. (And Reynolds should not really be placed in the same category as Wesberry or Baker -- they may all have to do with population, but the differences between them are significant).

[Donerail]

In the flag burning case, Texas v. Johnson, Scalia said flag burning is protected by the 1A. Does Thomas agree with Scalia and believe Texas v. Johnson was correctly decided?

I'd doubt it. Good for him tbh, Thomas's dissent in Virginia v Black one of his better opinions

[I’m not Stu]

In the flag burning case, Texas v. Johnson, Scalia said flag burning is protected by the 1A. Does Thomas agree with Scalia and believe Texas v. Johnson was correctly decided?

I'd doubt it. Good for him tbh, Thomas's dissent in Virginia v Black one of his better opinions

Thomas believes flag burning should be banned? Does a majority of the current SCOTUS think flag burning should be banned?

[politicallefty]

This is blatantly untrue. The rest of this post is hardly worth responding to. You may be interested to know that even today in Canada, ridings will differ in population by as much as 5:1, and that historically many states, including the United Kingdom and Australia, also had vast malapportionments. While malapportionment was an issue pre Wesberry/Reynolds, it was by no means enough to make the US unrepublican, and voters have retained control of this country's government from the moment of its inception -- which certainly is something to be proud of. (And Reynolds should not really be placed in the same category as Wesberry or Baker -- they may all have to do with population, but the differences between them are significant).

"Voters" is a term defined by who amongst the citizenry is eligible to vote. That meaning has evolved over time, as we all know. My reference as to the apartheid state was in reference to the South prior to the VRA. The Fifteenth Amendment existed for nearly a century before it had meaning amongst the South. In Mississippi, black voter registration was 6.7% prior to the VRA. It jumped to nearly 60% two years later. Are you trying to say that those numbers are because black people didn't want to participate in the electoral process?

Most malapportionments in other democracies nowadays mostly have to do with some geographic or minority representation (places such as the Isle of Wight or Labrador having their own seats). I'm well aware of what a rotten borough in the historical context. Those lines are also now drawn by nonpartisan commissions, not partisan actors. If Wesberry were overturned, do you really think states would not work towards their worst partisan instincts? Population equality is literally the last constraint on gerrymandering. Can you really not imagine what some states would do if they could gerrymander and disregard the size of each district? At that point, the last restrictions would be whatever there are in-state and the last vestiges of the VRA.

For the record, I don't think malapportionment made this country unrepublican (although, together with partisan gerrymandering, it most certainly would now). I do think Jim Crow laws made the South unrepublican until the VRA became law. Once again, that is the apartheid state I was referring to. The situation was so bad that Congress felt it necessary to pass the 24th Amendment.

I'm not sure why you think Reynolds should be separated from Wesberry or Baker. If was quite literally the successor to Baker and part of a larger line of jurisprudence that included the same principles in Wesberry.

[I’m not Stu]

If Thomas is in charge of a solid majority of five, would US democracy survive that or die and never come back?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, he is wrong on Quotas and Gerrymandering but on abortion he is right we have evolved and abortion is one procedure in planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood isn't just for pregnancy it teaches abstinence in the age of STD , AIDs and Herpes


Some people forget that the women failed to use birth control on abortion and the females are getting AIDs but Gay sex you can get Herpes,not AIDs. Per se

[I’m not Stu]

Is US democracy surviving a SCOTUS with Thomas in the majority more than Roberts more likely than being struck by lightning twice?