iAsk.ca

How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI

Fox News
Scott Gerber
OpinionJudicaryCourtLawPfreedoms

AI Summary

TL;DR: Key points with love ❤️

The article discusses how Justice Clarence Thomas has consistently advocated for individual rights over group rights, influencing the Supreme Court's recent decisions against race-conscious admissions and the 'background circumstances' rule in Title VII discrimination claims. His long-standing judicial philosophy, rooted in the Declaration of Independence's promise of individual judgment, is highlighted as the driving force behind the Court's shift away from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The recent unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion, is presented as a significant signal that DEI proponents are not complying with the law, a view Justice Thomas strongly concurs with.

Trending
  1. 1 1954: Brown v. Board of Education (criticized by Thomas in 1995)
  2. 2 1985: Thomas discussed EEO enforcement as EEOC chairman
  3. 3 1995: Missouri v. Jenkins (Thomas criticized Brown v. Board of Education)
  4. 4 2007: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (Thomas's concurring opinion on colorblind Constitution)
  5. 5 2016: Justice Antonin Scalia died
  6. 6 2020: Bostock v. Clayton County (Supreme Court decision quoted by Jackson)
  7. 7 2023: Supreme Court decisions holding colleges cannot consider race in admissions (Thomas wrote concurring opinion)
  8. 8 Last week: Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
  • DEI programs are challenged and may be deemed inconsistent with the law
  • American law is being returned to a focus on individual rights
  • Potential for overt discrimination against majority groups due to DEI initiatives
What: Justice Clarence Thomas's influence on Supreme Court decisions, particularly regarding individual rights versus group rights, leading to rulings that challenge Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The article highlights the recent Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services decision and the 2023 race-conscious admissions rulings.
When: Over three-and-a-half decades, with specific mentions of 1985, 1995 (Missouri v. Jenkins), 2007 (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1), 2023 (college admissions decisions), and 'last week' (Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services).
Where: Supreme Court of the United States, American law, Ohio (Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services), Seattle School District No. 1 (Parents Involved case), Missouri (Missouri v. Jenkins).
Why: Justice Thomas's long-held belief in individual rights and a 'color-blind Constitution,' stemming from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and his opposition to preferences for certain groups. The article suggests his philosophy has become the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement.
How: Through his judicial opinions, concurring opinions, and consistent advocacy for individual rights, which has influenced his peers on the Supreme Court, including a unanimous decision joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

People

Clarence ThomasKetanji Brown JacksonJustice HarlanAntonin Scalia

Organizations

Supreme CourtEEOCOhio Department of Youth ServicesSeattle School District No. 1Fox News

Locations

United States

The article discusses how Justice Clarence Thomas has consistently advocated for individual rights over group rights, influencing the Supreme Court's recent decisions against race-conscious admissions and the 'background circumstances' rule in Title VII discrimination claims. His long-standing judicial philosophy, rooted in the Declaration of Independence's promise of individual judgment, is highlighted as the driving force behind the Court's shift away from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The recent unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion, is presented as a significant signal that DEI proponents are not complying with the law, a view Justice Thomas strongly concurs with.