Justice Clarence Thomas: 'At some point we’re going to be fatigued with everybody being a victim'...

Cpl Jeff N. - Higher courts - all appellate courts - routinely make law which is used by other appellate courts and trial courts to make decisions. No one can pretend in today's world that appellate decisions, executive regulations, and legislative statutes are not part of the law making process - balancing individual and public interests with current needs for government intervention to ensure equal treatment / due press system works. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

1LT Sandy Annala - Higher courts don't make laws. A know a lot of people complain that they "legislate" but they don't. Not in America. They interpret laws in relation to other laws and in practical applications.

1LT Sandy Annala - Justice Thomas is an originalist, much like the departed Justice Scalia. Thus my opinion is much in his favor while others will not concur. Thus, if I provide you with examples, you may see them in quite the opposite light as I see them. Why then pile on? I only advise that we all make up our own minds. Yes, I know that my interpretation is colored by the fact that I studied law which provides me with a different perspective than one who hasn't. However, many who have also studied the law would disagree with me in their opinions of Justice Thomas. I'm going to close by providing an opinion piece knowing full well that it doesn't satisfy your request. However, it fairly states my own assessment of him.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/clarence-thomas-often-stands-alone-as-opinions-set/

CPT Jack Durish - I was never formally a law student - but I took up legal research as a part of funding my education. That was back in the day of Shephard's Citations - not the modern computer era. My impression was many courts make new rights and laws through "interpretation" of black letter law, regulations, and prior court opinions. I know we could argue whether this is the right thing to do - forever - but a higher court precedent is just as good, often more up to date, and just as valid reason underlaying a judicial outcome as either the constitution or black letter law. I never questioned whether Clarence Thomas is a man of the people - but I have the sense Clarence Thomas concurring and dissenting opinions are largely derivative footnotes where the majority decision and the basis for their decision is what really matters. To repeat a hackneyed expression - Clarence Thomas is no Scalia. Scalia was a great scholar and leader on the Supreme Court - whose discussions and decisions have a lasting effect on everything in our legal system from the President to the dog catcher. Justice Antonin Scalia deserves a memorial and a statue. My opinion is still out re Justice Clarence Thomas. However, I rather suspect he would have difficulty with the current revolt against pervasive sexual harassment and sexual abuse of women by men of power in our society. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)
https://youtu.be/ZURHD5BU1o8