From his dissent:
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
Thomas went on to write that one’s liberty and dignity should be shielded from the government — not provided by it.
“Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on ‘due process’ to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the ‘liberty’ protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society,” Thomas wrote in conclusion.
Over the years I have found it fascinating to read the opinions of Scalia and Thomas side by side.
Although they usually end up on the same “side” in the final vote, their lines of reasoning are almost always quite different. That difference is very apparent in the quote you posted as opposed to Scalia’s dissent.
While Scalia uses tight judicial reasoning and strict Constitutional construction in arriving at his opinions, Thomas quite often (as is the case here) appeals to the Natural Law and the concept of human nature. He is working not from the point of view of what the Constitution prescribes (or omits) but rather what the human condition is and should be.
I seriously doubt that the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor even begin to fathom the depth of the reasoning emanating from these two sages. In fact they probably have to call ValJar just to find out how they are supposed to vote.