Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Thomas' Literal Interpretations

June 21, 2004

Re "Thomas' Take on the Law Rooted in 18th Century," June 17: Reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights word for word, you'll see that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is literally correct, just not "politically correct." Over the last 150 years we've stretched our interpretation of the meaning of words in the Constitution to fit our wishes. Sort of like the recent questioning of what "is" is.

Trent D. Sanders

La Canada Flintridge

*

I'm a bit perplexed by Thomas' adherence to states' rights and the use of historical determination in arguing for the limitation of federal power. My problem is that he didn't feel that way when he heard the presidential election case in 2000. But then again, I guess the line shifts when it's a Republican or powerful interest at stake rather than just individual rights.

Ken Marcus

Los Angeles

*

Perhaps Justice Thomas is right -- we should revert to the Constitution as it was originally conceived. I assume that would also mean that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, would be rescinded. But then, would someone who is not considered a person and who certainly doesn't have the right to vote still be permitted to serve on the Supreme Court?

Stan Roth

Los Angeles

*

I found it very enlightening to learn that Thomas' realities are so firmly rooted in the 18th century. I would have been more tempted to relegate his kind of thinking to the Dark Ages. Either way, it is hardly comforting to know that this anachronism could continue to serve on the nation's highest court "for the next several decades."

William L. Moore

Hollywood

*

Thomas has spoken, which reveals he has reached, nay surpassed, his level of incompetence. Tell me, Mr. Thomas, which church should I go to?

Bruce Stark

Seal Beach

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|