I'll sum up the interviews with the justices after I watch Alito, Roberts and Stevens, but a bit more can be said beforehand. The interviews thus far came in two paths: a regular C-SPAN woman interviewer sat down with a particular justice or Brian Lamb in effect got a tour of the justices' chambers. Justice Breyer, who was the first interviewed, had a bit of both. Again, Souter did not take part. As to his replacement ... a good discussion on how to properly handle a judicial nominee on their approach to the law, citing an interesting case that showed no justice now simply "applies the law" without somewhat subjectively interpreting its context. See also my later comment, where I find Prof. Kerr's comparison of Sotomayor with Roberts lame.
Justice Thomas was in the former category, though he was interviewed by Lamb a few years ago for the Q&A series. There Thomas' anger at some critics shows up; here he mostly avoids talking about it, just noting he had a bad time during the hearing process and does not pay much attention to media coverage. Thomas does compliment Jan Crawford Greenburg in particular, which is not too surprising given her book puts him in a favorable light. He also explains that he finds the written briefs more helpful, but does like to listen during oral arguments. This is fine, really, but rarely asking questions is one thing. Never is quite another, particular since his perspective could be helpful, such as when he asked one during an affirmative action case.
I'd add that I think the guy gets a bit too hard of time -- he is not just a Scalia mouthpiece; in fact, he is much more consistently (for good or ill) "originalist" than Scalia. Thomas might not ask questions during orals, but does make himself known, giving speeches and being involved in public service. One conservative leaning blogger once told me that Thomas also writes well, you know from his opinions what the Court decided and such. Thomas himself noted he was pleased when someone told him that. I can't really say though he does seem to have a clear writing style, which you can say even if you disagree with the substance of his opinions. I also liked when he said that the opinions he liked the most was ones that did not affect too many people -- he did not relish affecting the lives.
He is also a hard worker (he noted in fact that he would like more cases, to keep busy) and diligent about his job. Thomas clearly seems to see that he has an important duty to perform here. He comes off as a bit cold, which is not too surprising given the harsh criticism and such Thomas had to handle, but I can respect him on various levels while still opposing him on others. I think he was an unfit nomination and his behavior during the hearings was in various cases a disgrace. But, someone like him -- and I'm not trying to be patronizing here -- is a good fit for the Court overall.
Maybe not him personally, but so be it.