This is the power of principle:
Clarence Thomas has borne some of the most vitriolic personal attacks in Supreme Court history. But the persistent stereotypes about his views on the law and subordinate role on the court are equally offensive - and demonstrably false. An extensive documentary record shows that Justice Thomas has been a significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court for the past 15 years.
That's not the standard storyline. Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.
Pragmatism is often nothing more than an excuse for standing for nothing beyond what is momentarily convenient. Rather than being a foil for ideology, it is just the mere absence of any firm convictions. The power of principle coupled with a rational, observant mind can propel people quickly into influential leadership positions once they are standing in the doorways of the halls of power. It's obvious why. You either lead, which is what principle drives you to do, or you follow, which is what pragmatism forces you to do by subordinating your thoughts to the present.
And for the record, I have always had the highest respects for Clarence Thomas. He is undoubtedly the most conservative-libertarian thinker on the Supreme Court, and the one most willing to put his foot down and stand for something. I'd rather disagree with a man like that, than agree with a man who just goes with the way the wind blows today.
Thomas has long been my favorite justice, probably from the day I read his opinion on the Kansas City Schools desegregation case. It was clear, to the point, and tied everything together with principles based on the words of the Constitution rather than the politics of the moment - in other words, it was quite unlike 99% of Supreme Court opinions. He is truly a national treasure.
I laughed out loud when Harry Reid said that Thomas was uniontelligent and not a good writer. It was clear from that one statement that Reid had never read a Thomas opinion, or if he did, understands nothing more complicated than "Cat in the Hat."
Hey, hey. Cat in the Hat is some pretty profound stuff! Don't you be dissing my man Dr. Seuss! Hehe anyway, I think it's more like Reid is either one of those leftists that can't imagine someone being simultaneously brilliant and subscribing to the sort of views that Clarence Thomas does. There are a lot of leftists out there who would simply dismiss someone as a blithering idiot, even if they had, say, the Physics knowledge and aptitude of Oppenheimer or someone like that and all they had was a high school education. Ideological idiots are just like that.
My opinion on Reid is he is a typical Democrat elitist. Read that as a racist, through and through. If your black and not on the Democrat plantation, your nothing.
I have not read any of Justice Thomas' opinions (not surprisingly - I'm not a lawyer, and haven't read very many supreme court opinions in general), but the positions attributed to him certainly seem strong and well-argued, if iconoclastic.
Thomas has always been the the proverbial rock in the shoe when it come to GWH Bush's legacy. For all his faults and trickle-down statism, appointing Thomas may have been the best thing any Repuiblican has done for the US since WWII.
Thomas has been the only friend of freedom on what has become the worst court since FDR's era, and that court was strong-armed and publicly humiliated into kow-towing to FDR.
I fear with Thomas's departure, that court will have snuffed out the last light of liberty it will ever see in its history.
I don't think that Thomas is going anywhere any time soon. Besides, we are fast approaching a meltdown point in America where neither party will be able to lead our country. The Republicans have failed after a decade or so of power, and the Democrats haven't even been in power for more than what, a month and a half, and they've already proven themselves to be incapable of being anything other than more extreme Republicans in the areas that count. The Libertarian Party has openly admitted now to having problems with organizing itself and has gone on record saying that it will focus on better strategy and resource allocation. I think that things might be looking up in the future.