I subscribe to this newsletter, and read this issue through a couple of times.
Clarence Thomas is no doubt a horrendous person to have sitting on the Supreme Court. The type of shithead we had no experience with prior to the Trump administration, and Klan Trump have now exceeded in every way.
But... there are a lot of ways to read his opinion.
If you read it without thinking about the author, it seems reasonable and logical.
If you read it while thinking about who Clarence Thomas is, and his history on the bench, it is clearly(?) a coded message to legal teams in lower courts.
The conservative wing of the Supreme Court has started advocating for the cases they want to overturn. Even in rulings where they deny the most conservative interpretation, they provide commentary that documents the process lower courts (and prosecutors) need to take to route around the Supreme Court's reason for denying this specific case. "Hey, we can't rule in your favor to eliminate women's rights because you didn't say these three words in the lower court's findings. Go back and run another case through the system that has those three words in it, and we will reverse the decision we made today, and you will win."
This opinion came out of the blue.
And not just out of the blue, but from a Supreme Court Justice that literally didn't say a word for three years, and when he did provide commentary, it was just plagiarized from the legal briefs he read about the case.
This opinion came from a man who doesn't actually have any ideas or opinions of his own.
Who got to him?
Who actually wrote this, and convinced him to submit it in his name, after a 29-year vow of silence?
What leverage did they have on him (remember Anita Hill?) that forced him into action?