recogitare.com

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:07 am

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:42 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 2:13 pm
I kind of doubt Justice Thomas would appreciate somebody claiming he said that. On the other hand, maybe he'd like being the subject of a story for children.

I think he would be more offended about being informed that he criticized the landmark ruling that got him his job.

Brown vs Board of Education got Justice Thomas his job? What a bizarre thing to say and even more so to suggest that's how Thomas would regard things. As a judge he has attacked the idea of affirmative action over and over, assuming that's what you're referring to.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 8:04 am

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:07 am

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 5:42 pm
I think he would be more offended about being informed that he criticized the landmark ruling that got him his job.

Brown vs Board of Education got Justice Thomas his job? What a bizarre thing to say and even more so to suggest that's how Thomas would regard things. As a judge he has attacked the idea of affirmative action over and over, assuming that's what you're referring to.

I was quite explicit about what I was referring to, and it had absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action. Reread the post, if you're inclined.

As for the rest, Thomas is quoting his own opinion in Jenkins.

“[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 125–126 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).

That opinion itself is interesting reading, for those who like that sort of thing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1823.ZC1.html


Now....to the larger point, and the reason I cited that as an article that I could tell was misleading or stupid, even before reading the article. Even before reading the article, I said that, at most, there might have been some phrase that Thomas did not like, or there might have been some complaint about how the ruling was applied. The headline makes you want to believe that somehow, Thomas thinks segregated schools are acceptable under the constitution. That's bullsht. Thomas thinks Brown got it right.

However, he thinks subsequent courts took it too far. It's spelled out more thoroughly in the Jenkins opinion.

It could be said that there was a mild rebuke of the opinion in Brown II. (There were two separate Brown v Board of Education opinions issued, one in 1954 and one in 1955. I wasn't awre of that until I read about this article.) It could also be said that he didn't like all of the reasoning or justification in Brown I. While he absolutely approves of and supports the ruling in Brown, unequivically, he suggests in Jenkins that some of the justification was unnecessary and subsequently misused.

The Axios article paints a much different picture. It's highly misleading, as I expected simply from the headine.

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:24 pm Can you link a media article that has an entirely different take on Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP"?

Still can't tell what you mean by saying Justice Thomas would be "offended about being informed that he criticized the landmark ruling that got him his job."

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:39 pm Quickly googling the subject of Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

What does Clarence Thomas believe about Brown v. Board of Education?
ChatGPT
Clarence Thomas, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, has expressed his views on Brown v. Board of Education in various opinions and writings. His stance on this landmark decision, which declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional, reflects his broader judicial philosophy.

Support for the Decision: Clarence Thomas supports the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. He agrees with the decision to end legally sanctioned racial segregation in public schools, recognizing it as a significant step toward ensuring equality under the law.

Critique of Modern Desegregation Efforts: While supporting the original ruling, Thomas has been critical of subsequent judicial and governmental efforts to enforce desegregation through measures like busing and racial quotas. He argues that such measures can be counterproductive and perpetuate a focus on race rather than eliminating racial distinctions.

Originalist Interpretation: Thomas often approaches constitutional issues from an originalist perspective, which means he interprets the Constitution according to the understanding of those who drafted and ratified it. In the context of Brown, he believes that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not envision state-enforced segregation, aligning with the decision's outcome.

Focus on the Harm Principle: In his opinions, Thomas has emphasized the harm caused by segregation, which aligns with the reasoning of the Brown decision that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal because they generate a sense of inferiority among minority children.

Educational Excellence: Thomas has often stressed the importance of educational excellence for all children, regardless of race. He has argued that measures to improve educational outcomes should focus on quality and accountability rather than racial balance.

In summary, Clarence Thomas agrees with the fundamental principles of Brown v. Board of Education but is critical of many subsequent desegregation policies that he believes shift the focus from ensuring equality to maintaining racial categories. His views reflect a blend of support for the original decision and a broader critique of race-conscious policies in education.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 3:20 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:24 pm Can you link a media article that has an entirely different take on Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP"?

I can't resist a challenge. It will be difficult, though. You see, it will be hard to find an article that says, "Clarence Thomas does not criticize Brown v. Board of Education". It's just not something that people write about.

On the other hand, there are, as you link list points out, enough media articles saying that he did criticize Brown that there might be a right leaning article that attempts to correct the record.

Still can't tell what you mean by saying Justice Thomas would be "offended about being informed that he criticized the landmark ruling that got him his job."

I doubt I can help, then, but I will strip out some of the other commentary and make it a bit easier to digest. Maybe that will work.

1. Thurgood Marshall was a well known civil rights lawyer.
2. Marshall's most famous case was Brown v. Board of Education.
3. Largely as a result of that case, Marshall was nominated by Lyndon Johnson to the Supreme Court.
4. Marshall was the first black person to serve on the Supreme Court.
5. Marshall remained the only black person on the court during his tenure.
6. When Marshall resigned, there was pressure on George H. W. Bush to nominate a black person to replace him, in order that there would be some non-white presence on the Supreme Court.
7. Clarence Thomas was the black person nominated to replace Marshall.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 3:47 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 2:39 pm Quickly googling the subject of Justice Thomas' language from his concurring opinion in "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP".

Google is so 20th century.

What does Clarence Thomas believe about Brown v. Board of Education?
ChatGPT
Clarence Thomas, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, has expressed his views on Brown v. Board of Education in various opinions and writings. His stance on this landmark decision, which declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional, reflects his broader judicial philosophy.

Support for the Decision: Clarence Thomas supports the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. He agrees with the decision to end legally sanctioned racial segregation in public schools, recognizing it as a significant step toward ensuring equality under the law.

Critique of Modern Desegregation Efforts: While supporting the original ruling, Thomas has been critical of subsequent judicial and governmental efforts to enforce desegregation through measures like busing and racial quotas. He argues that such measures can be counterproductive and perpetuate a focus on race rather than eliminating racial distinctions.

Originalist Interpretation: Thomas often approaches constitutional issues from an originalist perspective, which means he interprets the Constitution according to the understanding of those who drafted and ratified it. In the context of Brown, he believes that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not envision state-enforced segregation, aligning with the decision's outcome.

Focus on the Harm Principle: In his opinions, Thomas has emphasized the harm caused by segregation, which aligns with the reasoning of the Brown decision that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal because they generate a sense of inferiority among minority children.

Educational Excellence: Thomas has often stressed the importance of educational excellence for all children, regardless of race. He has argued that measures to improve educational outcomes should focus on quality and accountability rather than racial balance.

In summary, Clarence Thomas agrees with the fundamental principles of Brown v. Board of Education but is critical of many subsequent desegregation policies that he believes shift the focus from ensuring equality to maintaining racial categories. His views reflect a blend of support for the original decision and a broader critique of race-conscious policies in education.

To be fair, this is not what you asked for. It isn't a media article, and it doesn't specifically address the Alexander ruling.

However, in a different sense, it actually addresses your question better than finding a media article would. ChatGPT has provided an accurate answer to the question I posed, and if the ruling from Alexander is read with that knowledge, the ruling becomes a bit easier to understand.

Still, it is not what you asked for, so I will endeavor to see if I can find a specific answer to exactly the question you asked. I can't spend too much time looking, but as I said, I can't resist a challenge.

(And, just to be clear, I am perfectly aware that chatGPT is not a reliable source of information. However, I find it fascinating that chatGPT actually exists, so I quoted it. It's quite amazing. In this specific case, I happen to know, because of background knowledge that chatGPT's answer is quite accurate, and does a good job of addressing the issue.)

Did Clarence Thomas criticize Brown v. Board of education in his concurring opinion in the 2024 Alexander case?
ChatGPT

Searched 4 sites

In his concurring opinion in the 2024 case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Justice Clarence Thomas did critique aspects related to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. He argued that federal courts should not have the authority to intervene in redistricting cases, criticizing what he termed the "boundless view of equitable remedies" that emerged from decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and its successor Brown II. Thomas contended that such expansive judicial power was inconsistent with the history and tradition of equity power and the Framers' design of the Constitution​ (Ballotpedia)​​ (Wikipedia)​​ (The Daily Beast)​.

This stance reflects Thomas's broader judicial philosophy that emphasizes a limited role for the judiciary in political matters, suggesting that tasks such as drawing legislative districts should be left to the political branches, not the courts. This position has been controversial and has sparked significant debate about the role of the judiciary in addressing issues of racial discrimination and gerrymandering​ (Wikipedia)​​ (The Daily Beast)​.

Did Clarence Thomas criticize Brown v. Board of Education in the Alexander ruling.
ChatGPT
Clarence Thomas did not criticize the core holding of Brown v. Board of Education in his concurring opinion in the Alexander v. Sandoval case (2001). Instead, his opinion was more focused on the application and interpretation of civil rights laws, particularly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Alexander v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court addressed whether private individuals could sue under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for practices that have a disparate impact on racial groups. The Court's majority, including Thomas, ruled that private individuals could not bring lawsuits for disparate impact under Title VI because the statute only addresses intentional discrimination.

Thomas's concurring opinion in Alexander primarily dealt with the interpretation of Title VI and the scope of enforceable rights under it. While he did express skepticism about the use of disparate impact theory as a means of addressing racial discrimination, he did not directly criticize the Brown v. Board of Education decision itself. Instead, his focus was on the limits of statutory interpretation and the appropriate reach of civil rights laws.

Thus, it is not accurate to say that Thomas criticized Brown v. Board of Education in the Alexander ruling. His critique was aimed at the judicial expansion of civil rights protections beyond what he believes the statutes originally intended, particularly concerning disparate impact claims.

Did Clarence Thomas criticize Brown v. Board of education in the Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP case?
ChatGPT
Clarence Thomas did not criticize Brown v. Board of Education in the case of Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. In fact, there is no Supreme Court case specifically titled "Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP" that features an opinion by Clarence Thomas.

However, there is another significant case involving Clarence Thomas that deals with the broader implications of school desegregation: Missouri v. Jenkins (1995). In this case, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion where he expressed views on desegregation policies post-Brown v. Board of Education.

In Missouri v. Jenkins, Thomas emphasized his support for the Brown decision but criticized subsequent judicial and policy efforts, such as busing and racial quotas, designed to enforce desegregation. He argued that these efforts often failed to improve educational outcomes and sometimes perpetuated racial classifications rather than eliminating them.

Thomas's views can be summarized as follows:

Support for Brown: He unequivocally supports the original decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended de jure racial segregation in public schools.
Critique of Desegregation Efforts: Thomas criticizes the post-Brown efforts that, in his view, went beyond merely eliminating segregation and instead imposed racial balancing measures. He believes such measures can be counterproductive and detract from the goal of achieving a colorblind society.
Thomas's opinions reflect his belief in a limited role for the judiciary in enforcing desegregation and a preference for race-neutral policies.

To summarize, while Clarence Thomas has been critical of some of the methods and policies used to implement desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education, he has not criticized the decision itself. His critiques are directed at the policies and judicial decisions that came after Brown, which he believes have sometimes misapplied the principles of the original decision.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2024 4:13 pm (Preface: I present the following because of my interest in chatGPT. My dispute with PresidentBush has gone off into the silly weeds, so I don't think I'll be talking about it much more, unless he posts something particularly interesting, or silly.)


I thought I would try another chatGPT experiment. Because the Alexander ruling was so recent, and most media coverage was critical, I wondered if chatGPT's training material, and thus its answer, would reflect that.

Why did Justice Thomas criticize Brown vs board of education
ChatGPT
Justice Clarence Thomas has criticized the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled against racial segregation in public schools, for a few reasons. Thomas believes that the decision led to unintended consequences, including the erosion of community support for black schools and the rise of forced busing to achieve integration. He has argued that the decision led to a focus on racial balance rather than educational quality and that it undermined the principles of local control and parental choice in education. Additionally, Thomas has expressed skepticism about using the courts to address social and political issues, preferring instead to rely on legislative solutions.