[robertpaulsen]

"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?

[Ken H]

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.

Nobody said otherwise.

Is this Clarence Thomas Appreciation Week, or does your post have a point?

Yeah. You said:"Of course, I'm sure he sees no problem with the USSC and other courts forcing states to fund judicial activism. That's OK."

I replied: "Do you have an example of Justice Thomas' approval of forcing States to fund judicial activism? If you do, fine. If not, then you have just set up and knocked down a strawman."

Justice Thomas, commenting on one of the cases you cited, wrote disapprovingly of forcing states to fund judicial activism.

The point being, you were wrong about Justice Thomas.