What do you think?
Rate this book
First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas
An assessment of the first five years of Justice Clarence Thomas's time on the Court
Clarence Thomas is one of the most vilified public figures of our day. Time magazine called him “Uncle Tom Justice,” and famed columnist Nat Hentoff accused him of “having done more damage, more quickly, than any Supreme Court Justice in history.”
To date, however, his legal philosophy has received only cursory treatment. Scott Gerber provides a portrait of Thomas based not on the justice's caricatured reputation, but on his judicial opinions and votes, his scholarly writings, and his public speeches. And what Gerber finds is likely to surprise Justice Thomas’s critics and supporters alike.
Clarence Thomas is one of the most vilified public figures of our day. Time magazine called him “Uncle Tom Justice,” and famed columnist Nat Hentoff accused him of “having done more damage, more quickly, than any Supreme Court Justice in history.”
To date, however, his legal philosophy has received only cursory treatment. Scott Gerber provides a portrait of Thomas based not on the justice's caricatured reputation, but on his judicial opinions and votes, his scholarly writings, and his public speeches. And what Gerber finds is likely to surprise Justice Thomas’s critics and supporters alike.
305 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1998
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 6, 2024
I differ with the author's conclusion regarding the relationship between Justice Thomas' views and his politics, but I think one could argue he was justified in reaching that conclusion. Why do I mention this? Well, it's not to convince anyone about what to think concerning Justice Thomas, but simply to let readers of this review know they can trust the author's analysis. It is unbiased, faithful to what Justice Thomas actually believes and, most importantly for me, enjoyable to read.
For those who have read the book, I was surprised to learn Justice Thomas actually employs two forms of originalism: conservative (more concerned with the text of the Constitution and the views of the founders) and liberal (more concerned with the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence). This marks the difference between his approach to civil liberties and federalism on one hand, and civil rights on the other.
I encourage everyone interested in Justice Thomas' jurisprudence to pick this book up, whether you love him or hate him. All sides will find this an engaging read.
For those who have read the book, I was surprised to learn Justice Thomas actually employs two forms of originalism: conservative (more concerned with the text of the Constitution and the views of the founders) and liberal (more concerned with the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence). This marks the difference between his approach to civil liberties and federalism on one hand, and civil rights on the other.
I encourage everyone interested in Justice Thomas' jurisprudence to pick this book up, whether you love him or hate him. All sides will find this an engaging read.
Displaying 1 of 1 review