Clarence Thomas-- The Most Important Justice?

[Trevor Morrison]

On Professor Levinson's "functional definition" of extreme, Justice Thomas's
dissent in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996),
advocating that Buckley v. Valeo be overruled, seems a possible candidate.
He was alone in that argument in that case, though the Chief Justice and
Justice Scalia joined the other parts of his dissent.  Then, as evidence of
the slight normalization of that "extreme" position, Justice Scalia joined
Justice Thomas's dissent making the same argument in Nixon v. Shrink
Missouri Gov't PAC (2000).

Trevor Morrison

>From: sandy levinson <slevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU>
>Reply-To: Discussion list for con law professors
><CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>
>To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
>Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas-- The Most Important Justice?
>Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:00:28 -0600
>
><< attach1 >>


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com