Justice Clarence Thomas asserted this weekend that he and his life's work "are focused on defending liberty" and warned that criticizing him would have the long-term effect of inhibiting the Court from "protect[ing] the liberties that you enjoy now in this country."
But when it comes to the relatively powerless -- the individuals who most need the protection of the Court -- how likely is Thomas to protect their liberty? To put it mildly, not likely. If you're a young woman strip-searched based on extremely unreliable evidence that you might posses ibuprofen, or have been subjected to an illegal "no knock" search, or are a prisoner beaten up by prison guards for sport, or were convicted by a jury systematically cleansed of people of color, or were given a life sentence for stealing three golf clubs, or are a woman who seeks her freedom against arbitrarily enforced state laws forcing you to remain pregnant, etc. etc., you will find no relief from Justice Thomas despite very plausible constitutional arguments against your oppression. Your chances of achieving liberty from Thomas are much better if you represent a powerful interest that is already overrepresented in the political process, or perhaps a state government that wants the "freedom' to violate the rights of your citizens without financial penalty.
So Thomas' warnings that the Supreme Court will not be able to protect the rights of citizens who need the Court's protection couldn't ring more hollow. And what's even scarier going forward is that despite their largely dismal records, Thomas and Scalia are more likely to protect fundamental freedoms than George W. Bush's appointees. The Federalist Society and liberty are on a collision course.
