Of course, I'm sure he [Justice Clarence Thomas-kh] sees no problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism.
See post #244 regarding Missouri vs Jenkins, which Sandy was kind enough to bring to this thread.
The last sentence is a real haymaker:
When we presume to have the institutional ability to set effective educational, budgetary, or administrative policy, we transform the least dangerous branch into the most dangerous one.
It seems Justice Thomas does indeed have a problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism.
Well, there you go. Both the Congress and the USSC are guilty of forcing the states to accept unfunded mandates.
Is this Clarence Thomas Appreciation Week, or does your post have a point?