... that Hill was the tool of liberal activist groups "obsessed" with abortion and outraged because he did not fit their idea of what an African American should believe.

...
The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v. Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous 1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law.

Far better known is Thomas's concurrence in United States v. Lopez, where, alone among the justices, he expressed a willingness to reexamine fundamental aspects of the court's jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause -- granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce "among the several states" -- is the principal power used by the federal government to protect civil rights, worker safety and the environment. Thomas's views, if adopted by the court, would call into question fundamental statutes in all these areas. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in a separate opinion, "the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence as it has evolved to this point. Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to call in question the essential principles now in place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a commercial nature."

Reading a Thomas opinion can feel like hitting 100 mph on a deserted highway: thrilling (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) but still a bad idea. The excitement of approaching every constitutional question anew comes at the cost of a stab to our constitutional tradition. No president should accept this trade-off.

Well, this interview is very interesting.
...

However, Thomas acknowledges that his appointment to the Supreme Court at the edge of 43 and with barely a year of judicial experience makes it hard to believe that race was not a factor in his selection.

CBS's 60 Minutes featured an extensive interview on Sunday with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "He is often dismissed as a man of little accomplishment," began CBS's Steve Kroft, "an opportunistic black conservative who sold out his race, joined the Republican Party, and was ultimately rewarded with an affirmative action appointment to the nation's highest court, a sullen intellectual lightweight so insecure that he rarely opens his mouth in oral arguments."

When asked about these "misperceptions," Thomas told CBS that his job is "not to respond to idiocy." He insists that although he is just one member of an emerging anti-affirmative action majority on the Supreme Court, the "civil rights establishment" has singled him out for criticism, calling him a hypocrite or a traitor to his people. "It's none of their business," said Thomas about such charges. "Do I love helping black people? Absolutely."

Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at Chapman University, revealing that he doesn’t even really “like” being a Supreme Court justice:

“There’s not much that entices about the job,” Thomas said, answering questions from the public that provided a rare glimpse of the man behind the office. “There’s no money in it, no privacy, no big houses, and from an ego standpoint, it does nothing for me.”

Thomas, 59, said the position is satisfying because he feels he’s serving the public, and he’s honored by it, “but I wouldn’t say I like it.”

“I like sports,” Thomas said. “I like to drive a motor home.”

I wonder if he's still married to his white wife.