project

Clarence Thomas, a conservative justice of the Supreme Courtroom of america, has been a vocal critic of affirmative motion insurance policies. In a 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion wherein he argued that the College of Michigan’s affirmative motion program was unconstitutional. Thomas argued that this system violated the Equal Safety Clause of the Fourteenth Modification as a result of it discriminated in opposition to white candidates.

In his dissent, Thomas additionally criticized using race-conscious insurance policies on the whole. He argued that such insurance policies are inherently divisive and that they in the end do extra hurt than good. Thomas’s views on affirmative motion are constant together with his total judicial philosophy, which emphasizes originalism and textualism. Originalism is the assumption that the Structure ought to be interpreted based mostly on its authentic which means, whereas textualism is the assumption that the textual content of the Structure ought to be given its plain which means.

Read more