So here's the question: Given that Justices are *supposed to* be
swayed by good arguments in briefs, and by collegial interactions with their
colleagues, and given that lots of people change their views in 12 years,
how can examination of his opinion today give us an even remotely reliable
guess about what he thought 12 years ago?
After all, it's not uncommon for people to at first have a pretty
general and not terribly well-examined view of an issue -- e.g., "there is a
right to privacy, albeit a very narrow one, which applies to things like
contraception among married people" -- and then on reflection, reading, and
discussion conclude that their view was wrong -- constitutionally
illegitimate, practically unworkable, or what have you. Now maybe that
isn't what happened with Thomas; but how could we possibly, based on his
decision today, get any meaningful enlightenment about whether it did or
didn't happen?
Eugene
