Prometheus 6

The title of the WSJ article is "Mr. Constitution," as if Thomas is really committed to the constitution, while other justices vote their personal preferences....

The point instead involves a major irony of the modern era: Those who insist that they are speaking neutrally for "the Constitution" are often more, not less, likely to read their own political convictions into constitutional law.

Clarence Thomas Is Not 'Mr. Constitution'

The Wall Street Journal has a remarkable interview with Clarence Thomas, available here. In the interview, Thomas states his fidelity to the Constitution "as it's drafted."

In context, it seems clear that Thomas means to follow the original understanding of the document (though he resists the term "originalism") The real point is that he is a neutral interpreter. "Maybe I am labeled as an originalist or something, but it's not my constitution to play around with. Let's just start with that. We're citizens. It's our country, it's our constitution. I don't feel I have any particular right to put my gloss on your constitution. My job is simply to interpret it."...