...over such a random discussion, but I don't share everyone's enthusiasm for Thomas at all. In fact, I think he's one of the worst justices on the Court with respect to individual rights.
Although it seems that he respects the true meaning of the Commerce Clause, that is only because it's mostly liberal issues that have been brought before him. In cases involving, say, federal power to police drugs, Thomas is much more lacklustre on restricting the power of the federal government.
Thomas almost always sides with the state on any issue regarding violations of the Bill of Rights. Police aggression was never excessive, searches and seizures were never unreasonable, confessions were never coerced, warrants were never invalid. Perhaps worse, he is probably the biggest opponent of habeas corpus on the Court... his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is practically infamous. He was also a neoconservative cheerleader in the Hamdan case.
Note that I don't like Scalia much, either, but he gets huge props from me for his strong, principled and consistent defense of habeas corpus -- he puts the "liberal" justices to shame on that score. But Thomas just doesn't seem to care for individual rights.
It sucks that there is no Supreme Court justice who is both an originalist and who respects individual liberty; i.e., no libertarian justices.
Please don't wish for Ron Paul to appoint any Clarence Thomases anywhere! Seriously, I'd rather have Earl Warren again than another Thomas.
