"O'Connor was horribly convoluted and vague where she didn't need to be."
When I was in Law School in 1991, O'C wrote an opinion dealing with intellectual property. Since I was taking a patent/copyright course at the time the Prof had us study it. After 2 classes, he came to the conclusion that it made no sense at all. It didn't. IMHO, she was a token female in waaay over her head.
O'Connor is the ultimate example of an affirmative action appointee gone bad, talking waaaay too much to establish how smart she is when it's far too obvious she's in over her head. Thomas, on the other hand, is an affirmative action appointee who has his head on straight--he's unsure if he's up to the level of the other appointees but he's not willing to f up a good thing by yapping stupidly in oral argument or making an ass of himself in writing opinions that are beyond his grasp.
O'Connor always has some sort of stupid 5-point test she's made up on the fly. Or her most egregious idiocy, that "it's in the Constitution 25 more years" line in Grutter. Thomas, when he does have something to add, is stellar in his foundation and flawless in his execution.
God save us from more O'Connors, and God grant us the good fortune that the High Court be made up of humble and talented men like Clarence Thomas. We should be so lucky as to have Justice Alito agree with him 95% of the time.