I agree that Clarence Thomas has proved he's a superior jurist in terms of intellect and judgement, and certainly deserves recognition for that. But could he not exhibit at least one instance of breaking ranks with the Federalist Society position on, say, an issue involving the environment, abortion, money in politics, voting rights? It would make his voice more credible among non-ideologues. Perhaps he has and I missed it...
I agree that Clarence Thomas has proved he's a superior jurist in terms of intellect and judgement, and certainly deserves recognition for that. But could he not exhibit at least one instance of breaking ranks with the Federalist Society position on, say, an issue involving the environment, abortion, money in politics, voting rights? It would make his voice more credible among non-ideologues. Perhaps he has and I missed it...