Compare/Contrast Justices Thomas and Marshall - Essay Example

Compare/Contrast Justices Thomas and Marshall Supreme Court justices are the highest levels of law enforcers in the United s. It is their rulings that can greatly impact the nation for years to come. With the recent passing of William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the court, and the impending retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the recent months of the court have been filled with confirmation hearings to fill vacancies. These vacancies prove to be especially crucial in that even a slight change in court ideology and greatly impact the final ruling it gives to a case(s). For this specific overview, the Justices to observe are Thurgood Marshall, and Clarence Thomas. Two men who sat on the court, issued their respective rulings, and in their own way would greatly shape the impact the court would have on a variety of things. The first to look at is the case of the University of California at Davis, v. Bakke. This was a case that involved university practice of accepting certain percentages of new enrollees under specific minority classes. The court would in fact rule in favor of respondent Bakke, saying in effect that, “petitioner’s program violated the California Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et. seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (UCD v. Bakke). Interestingly enough though, the court did not order the University to admit the person even though it had come down on the University for having such an admission policy in the first case which based its practice on race. The following is what Justice Marshall issued as his opinion on the matter, “I agree with the judgment of the Court only insofar as it permits a university to consider the race of an applicant in making admissions decisions. I do not agree that petitioners admissions program violates the Constitution. For it must be remembered that, during most of the past 200 years, the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, did not prohibit the most ingenious and pervasive forms of discrimination against the Negro. Now, when a State acts to remedy the effects of that legacy of discrimination, I cannot believe that this same Constitution stands as a barrier,” (Marshall opinion). In the case of Justice Thomas, the case to view for him is Grutter v. Bollinger, et. al. This case was argued in April of 2003, and decided in June of that same year. The first paragraph of the case summary state that, “The University of Michigan Law School (Law School), one of the Nation’s top law schools, follows an official admissions policy that seeks to achieve student body diversity through compliance with Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265. Focusing on students’ academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of their talents, experiences, and potential, the policy requires admissions officials to evaluate each applicant based on all the information available in the file, including a personal statement, letters of recommendation, an essay describing how the applicant will contribute to Law School life and diversity, and the applicant’s undergraduate grade point average (GPA) and Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) score. Additionally, officials must look beyond grades and scores to so-called “soft variables,” such as recommenders’ enthusiasm, the quality of the undergraduate institution and the applicant’s essay, and the areas and difficulty of undergraduate course selection. The policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for “substantial weight,” but it does reaffirm the Law School’s commitment to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students, who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers. By enrolling a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students, the policy seeks to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School’s character and to the legal profession,” (Grutter v. Bollinger). Justice Thomas’ opinion on this specific case is also important to look at. An interesting point Thomas makes appears towards the top of his total statement. He writes that, “No one would argue that a university could set up a lower general admission standard and then impose heightened requirements only on black applicants. Similarly, a university may not maintain a high admission standard and grant exemptions to favored races. The Law School, of its own choosing, and for its own purposes, maintains an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results. Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution to the self-inflicted wounds of this elitist admissions policy,” (Thomas opinion). In observing both Justices commentary, it appears that they both have their own similarities, and also differences between in each other in what both Justices decided to put as their final opinion on the matter. Justice Thomas comes down on the practice mentioned in his case, referring to it as “elitist”. He also, it should be noted, voted in the middle of the aisle on this case. It is that kind of voting which tends to show someone who puts more thought, and even considers multiple sides. In the case of Justice Marshall, he appears to be in the group of the University rather than the side of the student who was negative impacted by University policy. One of the main claims made by the final court ruling was that the University’s admission practices violated the constitution, and Marshall himself admits that he does not necessarily buy into that rationale. Here are two examples of men who are both deeply rooted in their convictions, but who differ in ideology and approach. These are both men who were greatly influential in their time, but who had their own specific way of going about things. Essentially they both had strong convictions and respect for their roles, but in the end that is where the similarities end. Justice Thomas would use language such as ‘elitist’ to describe the case he decided on, while Marshall would question the claim of constitution violation. Works Cited Grutter v. Bollinger Case Argued: 4/1/2003 Decided: 6/23/2003 Justice Clarence Thomas Accessed: Legal Information Institute- Supreme Court Collection URL: straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html University of California at Davis v. Bakke Case Argued: 10/12/1977 Decided: 6/28/1978 Justice Thurgood Marshall Accessed: Legal Information Institute- Supreme Court Collection URL: straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html Read More