A Critique of Justice Thurgood

 MarshallThurgood Marshall was the 96th United States Supreme Court associate Justice and the first ever African American for the post. He was born in 1908 and later died in 1993 after serving at the post from 1967 to 1991. He was among the best lawyers during his time before being appointed a Supreme Court Justice by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967. This research synopsis paper will launch a critique against one of America’s great champions, Justice Thurgood Marshall.

In many more ways, Justice Thurgood Marshall was and still remains one of America’s great men. His advance from a simple lawyer to one of the country’s finest lawyers, especially to do with the victory in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that saw the Supreme Court desegregate public schools. To cap to it, his intellectual, social, and physical bondage by both law and practice, particularly on racial discrimination, is something to be proud of. His peak was becoming the chair of the US Supreme Court, the first ever African American to hold the same. However, putting that aside, we get to have a look at the real Thurgood Marshall.

To get what kind of a person Marshall was, it is important that one reads articles and books about the man as well as his Supreme Court Opinions. Going through the above, one’s rhetoric about Marshall starts diminishing from the times he was a young lawyer through the ranks to his time as a Justice in the Supreme Court. Majority of his decisions in either the majority opinions or even in his dissenting one are rarely lined up with the US Constitution. One can easily deduce that his constitutional interpretation was against what the framers of the constitution intended. Most of his views were simply voting against the intent of the Constitution. He was seen as having liberal views on the US Constitution and would manipulate it for his own political ends. Many considered his actions as that of an activist who was ready to exterminate perceived political enemies and promote social justice.

In spite of his heroic skill and talent when he successfully integrated segregated schools in the Brown v Board Education, despite his winning 28 of the 32 Supreme Court appearances, and legacy as Justice Activist, there was something crucial missing in Marshall. Although his judicial and legal arguments were usually right, I think they just followed the wrong legal and judicial reasoning. I tend to think that his view of the US Constitution was seen through the race card. This may have been caused by his growing in America during the era of racial segregation. As such, his understanding and interpreting of the constitution was like a vehicle he used for social change. To him, the end justified the means.

Some of his the end justifies the means Constitutional interpretation include the case of Roe v Wade. His understanding was that women alone have the sole right to kill their babies if they desire so and in case they cannot afford it, the people’s tax will be used for the same (the end). Marshall and Brennan codified into law some racist suppositions of Margaret Sanger. The latter was a vile who taught that blacks were inferior to whites and founded the Planned Parenthood in 1916 to help facilitate in black genocide (the means). In the other case of Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Justice Marshall gave the poor access to home loans (the end). He did this by overruling the common law that dictate the right to contract and passing the loss in case of default to the tax payers.

Thus, although hailed as one of the best mind in law and being the first African American Justice, Thurgood Marshall’s decision and interpretations of the Constitution have proven otherwise.