a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment

So fundamentally you're saying "Clarence Thomas would vote the way he votes regardless of the influence because he's so ideologically pure?"

This is an interesting take, as the general consensus on Clarence Thomas in private life is "Ginni is his Svengali" while the general consensus on Clarence Thomas in jurisprudence is "Antonin Scalia was his Svengali". Scalia, of course, was even shadier than Clarence Thomas.

I find the argument "he's a scumbag on principle, not a scumbag for money" rarely holds water, especially when dealing with political movements that indoctrinate through largesse.