I am writing to correct a misimpression left by the recent Tribune article, “Little-known LDS lawyer poised to have big impact on law, politics.”
The article quotes Federalist Society President Sheldon Gilbert’s statement that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is committed “to originalism and following the law where it takes him rather than having a results-oriented approach to the law.”
Although Justice Thomas and his devotees frequently make this claim, it is demonstrably untrue.
For example, Justice Thomas voted with the majority in Bush v. Gore, where the court stopped Florida from counting disputed ballots, ensuring that George Bush would become president. Nothing in the original understanding of the Constitution supported this result, although it was surely the one Justice Thomas preferred.
Even worse, in Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Thomas joined a majority opinion striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The opinion relied on an invented doctrine that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution and in fact contravenes the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In any case related to cultural values, corporate power, or politics, Justice Thomas can be counted on to vote for his preferred result, whether supported by the original understanding of the Constitution or not.
Fred Voros, Salt Lake City
