Read the full opinion. It's not as cut and dry as you think. Thomas also actually asked questions during oral argument. For anyone who is not a huge SCOTUS nerd, Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years. A lot of people don't like him, for a range of reasons, but I tend to enjoy reading his opinions and hearing his questions (when he asks them) even if I disagree with them.

> Thomas asking questions during oral is exceedingly rare but has increased in frequency over the last 2-3 years.

My understanding is that, historically speaking, Thomas found that Scalia's probing of arguments was frequently sufficient, and that after Scalia's death, Thomas felt it necessary to start asking questions again.

I've heard this too, but as far as I'm aware Thomas has not confirmed this as the reason for why he's speaking up now.

Edit: Wanted to say that it's kind of weird to me to think that Thomas wasn't asking questions only because Scalia was. Maybe that's true, but it's just an odd thing to think for me after reading tons of Thomas' opinions. He definitely has a mind of his own.

Arm chair internet legal expert shares why legal scholar on Supreme Court is always “on the wrong side”.

Always exciting stuff to read!

He supported the right of the state of Texas to regulate what kind of sex it's citizens were allowed to have in Lawrence v Texas where cops responding to a noise complaint found gay men having sex and arrested them for having sex in their own home.

Flowers v. Mississippi was arguably worse or at least as bad.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas...

He believes a person facing prison has a right to hire counsel or accept the services of same but no right to effective counsel as established by Gideon v. Wainwright

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155

He also disagrees with New York Times vs. Sullivan. Wherein we severely limited the misuse of civil courts by public figuree to shut down free expression.

A capable analysis by the la times.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-chemerinsky-supr...

I could go on and on the constitution as he sees it would describe a nation unfit to live in something he has in common with strict constructionists.

Thomas is both morally and intellectually unfit

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/clarence-thoma...

He never credibly established his right to be on the court in the first place and his silence in court is because he has nothing to say. When he does speak in his dissents it is frequently to express sentiments that shock the conscience. He is more forward now because the conservative world has rotated far enough to the right that it is well aligned at this point with Thomas malignancy. He is emboldened and we ought to be concerned.

I might be an armchair non expert but at least I know people should have a right to council, the state shouldn't regulate what consenting adults do with their genitals buying legislators isn't speech, and trying a black man 6 times because the convictions keep getting overturned for prosecutorial misconduct is wrong.

This puts me, someone manifestly unfit to be a justice, head and shoulders above thomas.

So glad to have provided such rich entertainment. Got anything else to say?

Thanks!