I think Thomas writes things like this just to rub it in the face of all those liberals who opposed him on Anita Hill grounds, rather than just being honest and disagreeing w/ him b/c he's a conservative and doesn't toe the liberal line.
It sounds like Thomas's opinion is based on the same article of the Constitution that mandates Federal funding for Public Schools!
The supreme court in 1803 ruled that is is the sole judge of what the constitution means. Chief Justice Marshall with no complaint from President Thomas Jefferson said that the court decides what the constitution says and means.
Understand that for 199 years the supreme court has treated as indisputable fact that the constitution is what ever the judges says it is. I'll give you a tiny clue by asking a question. If what is written in the constitution conflicts with what the judges say, who prevails? The constitution for 199 years has been a worthless piece of paper the Judges point to when they agree with it, and ignore when they do not.
Only a fool could believe that we live in a Constitutional Republic. The surpreme court with no objection from the first Democracy Advocate (Democrat) President changed this nation from a Constitutional Republic into a Democracy tempered by Judical Fiat. Democracy Advocates don't like Republics, that is why they call themselves Democrats. If they were for a Republican form of government they would not name themselves after a Democratic form of goverment.
How many times do the judges have to rule the excact opposite of what the words in the Constitution say, before some people figure out the constitution is really what the judges say it is today. Tomorrow they may say something different and then the day after tomorrow something else. What they say then that will be the constitutional law. But until then it means whatever thay last said.
The funny part is, if the constitution meant what it said, anyone could tell you how the court would rule on a constitutional issue. For example if the word abortion or a word that means abortion does not appear in the constitution then the constutution does not control that subject and it is the domain of the states. That is what the words in the constitution say. If it is not in the constitution then it is the states job to legislate or leave the issue unregulated.
But if the judges want to rule on a subject, they do. They find abortion in the penumbra. It is just a way of saying that the constitution is what ever they say it is today. They see it in the penumbra ... even if you can't.
The first step in fixing any problem is to first understand the problem. The problem is this nation has for 199 years been a Democracy tempered by Judicial fiat.
In a Democracy public opinion rules for the present. Tomorrow public opinion may use different rules. To control such a government you must win a majority in every election. To control the judical fiat, you must control who gets to be a judge.
That is the name of the game. It is the only game. People who put their faith in the words of the constitution believe in the tooth fairy too. This nation ceased to be a Constitutional Republic in 1803.
It is in some respects fun to watch the left fool so many people. They tell you in their schools and colleges that this a nation ruled by the base law of a constiution. When that proves to be untrue, time, after time, after time, after time, they tell you it was just a bad judges. But when the law is what ever the judge says it is, there can be no bad judges... unless a judge rules he is bad.