Agree completely, Jonathan. Despite some major disagreements with Thomas on a number of issues, I think he has been unfairly and unjustifiably criticized on a number of fronts. One would hope that Raich would once and for all put to rest the silly notion that he is Scalia's lapdog, but then their differing views on many things should have put that to rest years ago. I was one who was pretty critical of his nomination at the time, not because of the Anita Hill nonsense but because I just didn't feel he was anywhere near the best person for the job. There is no question in my mind that he was nominated primarily because Bush the Elder needed to nominate a black man to replace Marshall on the court and Thomas was the most reliably conservative black appeals court judge at the time (the only other possibility really was Stephen Carter of Yale Law School). But the fact is that Thomas has acquitted himself very well on the court despite that difficult start. He has proven to be very thoughtful and, contrary to the utterly ridiculous myth, probably the most independent mind on the court.

No justice is going to be right all the time in the views of others, and I think Thomas' views have earned criticism on a number of fronts (I still have a 2/3 finished essay criticizing his establishment clause views that I need to complete and post). But Clarence Thomas has also earned my respect during his time on the court, and earned the right to tell a political hack like Harry Reid to go screw himself. The fact that he restrains hismelf from doing so speaks highly of his sense of the dignity of his position.

I always thought his views on the EC were unique, though he's been pretty consistent.

I've not read it, but a friend who has told me that Mark Tushnet's book "A Court Divided" does a good job of discussing the Thomas/Scalia relationship.

I agree. I particularly thought his dissent in Kelo was too important for the press to have overlooked it as they did. It takes intestinal fortitude to tell the Court time and again that its precedent has strayed from the Constitution. I have to respect that.

There is no question in my mind that he was nominated primarily because Bush the Elder needed to nominate a black man to replace Marshall on the court...

Off-topic, but isn't that a rather pathetic commentary on the state of political correctness in today's society? When Rehnquist resigns, Bush can *probably* get a pass for nominating another white male (heck, it might even be easier than getting a conservative Latino appointed), but when the next female justice retires, you can expect that lots of people will expect a female nominee to take her place.

Racism may be effectively dead, but we're still a long way from being a color-blind society.