Judicial philosophies.

Role of the debate in the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor:

The debate between originalism and living constitutionalism played a significant role in the confirmations of both Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. Thomas is an originalist, while Sotomayor is a living constitutionalist.

Thomas's confirmation: Thomas was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall, who had retired. Thomas's nomination was controversial, and he was accused of sexual harassment by law professor Anita Hill. Thomas was ultimately confirmed by a vote of 52-48.

Sotomayor's confirmation: Sotomayor was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009 to replace Justice David Souter, who had retired. Sotomayor's confirmation was relatively smooth, and she was confirmed by a vote of 68-31.

Judicial philosophy of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor:

Clarence Thomas is a conservative originalist. He believes that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood by the Framers at the time it was written. Thomas has been criticized for his views on women's rights and affirmative action.

Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal living constitutionalist. She believes that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that is relevant to the present day. Sotomayor has been praised for her views on civil rights and social justice.

Conclusion:

Originalism and living constitutionalism are two of the most important judicial philosophies in the United States. The debate between these two philosophies has played a significant role in the confirmations of Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

The two judicial philosophies are:

• Originalism: Originalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood by the Framers at the time it was written.
• Living constitutionalism: Living constitutionalists believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that is relevant to the present day.

Differences between the two philosophies:

• Originalism: Originalists focus on the original meaning of the text of the Constitution. They believe that the Framers were wise and that their intent should be respected. Originalists also believe that the Constitution is a fixed document that should not be changed by judges.
• Living constitutionalism: Living constitutionalists believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in a way that is relevant to the present day. They believe that the Framers could not have anticipated all of the issues that would arise in the future, and that judges should be able to adapt the Constitution to meet the challenges of the present day.