Talk:Clarence Thomas

Add a conflict of interest section?

I think that justice Thomas has been on the bench long enough for legal observers to note his lack of interest in refusing himself on cases connected to him personally. The most important of these cases, perhaps, was Bush v. Gore (2000). His spouse Ginny Thomas also was apparently cooperating with politicians trying to keep Donald J Trump in power after his November 2020 electoral loss. I would suggest a paragraph or two be added about these serious legal issues. see, e.g., this 2022 Slate legal article,https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/clarence-thomas-conflict-of-interest-consequences.html . Or a similar article about these issues in the New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/us/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-recusal.html.

Also, he was a key player in the decision that overturned precedent of 50 years of Roe v. Wade (1973). This decision was made by the court in mid 2022, and Justice Thomas made some controversial additions to the ruling that really got the legal world's attention, such as starting down the road to striking down some basic privacy rights, such as the right to a woman to obtain contraceptives [established in Griswold v. Connecticut decades ago, I believe]. A paragraph could also be added about that.

We could also add a little bit more about his history before he became a Supreme Court Justice. Where did he go to law school, what was his undergraduate degree in, and what was his legal demeanor before becoming such a powerful jurist? Jack S. Byrom (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2023 (CST)

If we're going to talk about overruling precedents, we should give context: it's actually quite common: [1]. Peter Jackson (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2023 (CST)

Jack, just go for it. This is way out of date. I've looked at it but have a difficult time being objective, as I dislike almost everything he's done and the fact that he was even confirmed to the court despite a pretty clear history of mistreatment of women. IMO a lot more needs to be added about the fracas around his confirmation. Pat Palmer (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2023 (CST)

I think we're off to a fine start to flesh this out. It's great that a photo of him has been added and that there are more details about his entire life and career now here. The conflict of interest section and summary of legal criticisms can be added later, as the page grows organically. Cheers,-Jack S. Byrom (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2023 (CST)

"right to an abortion"

is a rather misleading phrase. To me it suggests that the state will pay for it, if not actually provide it, but all RvW said was the state couldn't interfere. Peter Jackson (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2023 (CST)