End of conservative Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas may be next to leave


Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers.

Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died, they said. He likes to spend summers in his RV with his wife.

His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court. The next president is expected to immediately replace the seat opened by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, providing a one-vote edge in the court that is currently divided 4-4.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president. If it’s Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.

And, conservatives fear, that could switch to a 7-2 majority if Republican Justice Anthony Kennedy, already a swing vote, retires. He will be 80 next year.

We recently reported that if Clinton wins the presidency, her majority liberal court could stay in power at least until 2050.



I can’t say I’m sorry Clarence Thomas may be leaving. Actually I thought he had already left about ten years ago. He probably should never have been appointed in the first place.


How would they know he has been for a time “considering retirement” and why would they come out and say this now? Even if he is, it doesn’t mean he would actually retire soon though. I hope he stays until at least until there is a President in place that can nominate somebody who would themselves be a textualist / originalist.

The next President could possibly nominate three or four new Judges. The stakes for this presidential election…


I agree. We really need more Supreme Court Justices who are willing to ignore the Constitution to implement the desires of the our political elites. Justices who realize that those people in flyover country aren’t smart enough to run their own affairs without the government looking over their shoulder. God forbid, they might buy a gun, or eat too much salt, or drink too much soda, or be insufficiently enthusiastic about same-sex marriage, and we just can’t have that.


I’m glad you agree…



And, yet, the Republican electorate nominated Donal Trump.


They must secretly want Hillary to win since they really had to try hard to find someone even more disliked by a lot of Americans than what she is.



The majority of Republicans who voted, voted for Trump… and?

Who has more chance of nominating a textualist/originalist - Trump or Clinton? I think Trump.


Probabilities now favor Anton Scalia and now Clarence Thomas being replaced by Democratic nominees. This will add to the one that Obama was able to add.

Bad news for the unborn for at least one more generation, and bad news for the Constitution remaining the rock upon which America is built around.


Who knows what Trump is really going to do? He once suggested that his pro-choice sister would make a good Supreme Court nominee. The Republican electorate did no favours for those who care about having a conservative Supreme Court.


Well, a list of judges was put out that I think probably appeased some conservatives concerned about Trump. Between Clinton and Trump I think there’s more chance with Trump that you would get a Justice who was a textualist / originalist.


It was a good move, but most who care about having a conservative Supreme Court will harbour concerns.


They may well do… but i suspect many of them will hold their nose, so to speak, and vote for Trump, because they may believe Clinton would probably be worse than Trump regarding the Supreme Court.


They certainly won’t be voting for him with fervour.


A vote is a vote.


By progressive standards, that’s a pretty raaaacyyyysssttt thing to say. :wink:

He’s been good for the court. The real problem has been the liberals :frowning: and sometimes Kennedy and Roberts :o.

Mainstream liberals and Democrats may celebrate…until they get sick of things like high property taxes and then it can’t be fixed by electing a republican governor because 10 people take it to the high court.


It could be argued that most republican primary voters voted against Trump.

And weren’t some Democrats crossing over to vote for him? :o


His peak was at 25%.

Then 35%.

Then 40%.

Then he would lose once it was done to a few.

Never happened.

I think it’s safe to say that Trump would have been taken the majority of Republicans against any one candidate.


I wasn’t talking about Clarence Thomas’ political ideology. For example, I had no qualms about Antonin Scalia’s academic and experiential qualifications for the Court; but, at the time, I had thought Thomas may not have been sufficiently qualified, apart from the whole scandal involving Anita Hill. Of course, for the POTUS, no such qualifications would be necessary, as we know.

I have long thought that, if it were at all possible (which apparently it is not), Supreme Court justices should be neither politically liberal nor conservative. The highest court in the land, among all U.S. institutions, should not be clouded by politics.


It really is such a shame that the Supreme Court is so politicised. I think it may be preferable to have Judges elected to the Supreme Court in a similar way that politicians are, rather than being nominated by a President. But then that would be politicised as well… but still it may be preferable to the way it currently works. It would probably make the Justices more accountable to the people, and maybe there should be term limits on them as well.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.