Grutter V. Bollinger, Clarence Thomas, Affirmative Action and the Treachery of Originalism: The Sun Don\u27t Shine Here in this Part of Town

Careful examination of Justice Clarence Thomas\u27s dissenting opinion in the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger is important for a number of reasons: First, as one of the youngest members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas stands a reasonable chance of still being a member of the court in 25 years, the self imposed implosion date (sunset provision) established by Justice O\u27Connor\u27s majority opinion. No doubt, Thomas relishes the idea of writing the majority opinion that kills affirmative action and racial preferences for good. Second, much as Justice Harlan\u27s dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson was used as a guide for the majority opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, Thomas\u27s dissenting opinion in Grutter may eventually be looked to when the majority opinion is written that ends affirmative action programs once and for all. Third, in Grutter, Thomas was presented with yet another opportunity to return to the compassion he championed during his Senate confirmation hearings. Thomas refused this opportunity. Finally, evaluating Thomas\u27s Grutter dissent will serve to cement his race jurisprudence, as Grutter likely represents one of the most important race case that will come before the Supreme Court during Thomas\u27s tenure. The attached article carefully reviews Thomas\u27s dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger and examines the originalist rationale that he seemingly abandons in writing his saucy and sarcastic dissent