NYC has some snow today, but it isn't exactly blizzard like conditions, so some of the closings (including libraries, supermarkets and so forth) are a bit much. Still, got up early, walked to the local bakery for breakfast, and various stores were open to do some shopping as well.
In his University of Florida speech, Justice Thomas acknowledged—and, indeed, went so far as to celebrate—the fact that different judges decide cases differently. Different approaches, he said, "strengthen and inform our legal system." Accordingly, Justice Thomas went on, no one should be surprised that there will be disagreements about how to decide cases. ...
Justice Thomas's view that judges and justices do not base their decisions on their ideological preferences is probably best understood as more of an aspiration than a description of how courts actually function. A somewhat different view—which embraces values diversity as well as methodological diversity (though not partisanship)—was espoused by then-Judge Sotomayor in a 2001 speech. She said: "I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
-- Michael Dorf, "Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and the Noble Lie"
Meanwhile, as the Supreme Court is in a bit of a hiatus, Justice Thomas is out doing his thing -- the guy has his problems, including not asking questions at oral arguments (we get it; best to listen; but no questions sends a negative message) and a too cavalier opinion of precedent / a selective originalism. And, he still has signs of his angry at the world vibe. But, some of the criticism is a tad heavy-handed, particularly because he does have a certain consistency going for him (see, e.g., his opinion supporting medicinal marijuana use in California).
He does like to go out and speak to students, such outings educational in various respects. The above taste discusses his recent Q&A, providing a link, which provides a laid back, at times playful (he likes action movies, his RV and going to BBQ spots with students, apparently) side of him, though Thomas' serious side (which I respect) comes out as well. Another analysis recent remarks includes this:
First, he acknowledged that justices have different starting assumptions--which includes having different views of the proper modes of constitutional and statutory interpretation (originalist, pragmatist, minimalist, etc.). Skeptics suggest that these jurisprudential views merely serve to cover political decision making, but a better explanation of the connection is that their political views incline them toward adopting jurisprudential theories congenial to their views. This does not amount to the same thing (politics at bottom!) because the jurisprudential theory has its own implications and requirements that can and do regularly point away from a justice's political preferences.
Second, Justice Thomas acknowledged that justices see the world differently--each from a different perspective--which subtly colors just about everything, from how they perceive the facts, to the interests at stake, to the purposes and consequences of the laws at issue, to the applicable theory of legal interpretation, etc. These different perspectives on the world will naturally, inevitably, generate different legal decisions (though in a significant proportion of cases they will nonetheless agree on the law).
Check out here for a report of some other remarks. Note the problem with his off the cuff reasoning -- an argument is made that media corporations are separate because of the Press Clause (I find this argument as convincing as Scalia does, basically, but still) and the fact that a racist supporter of a corporate reform measure doesn't on its own negate the validity of the law. But, his other remarks on the ruling do make sense.
Justice Thomas appreciates "methodological diversity" but as the second analysis in particular notes, this often reflects "ideological" and yes even "political" diversity as well. The simplistic notion one directly follows from another can be overblown, but a connection (not always one you are aware of) exists. And, as Dorf notes, it is not really a "noble lie" to avoid the issue during confirmations, pretending (or -- as Sotomayor at times did -- very carefully touching on it) just some neutral "deciding what the law is" occurs.
Thomas comes off fairly well here. Perhaps, he might try to talk other places too?