Thomas implies that Baker v. Carr and Brown v. Board were incorrectly decided

Clarence Thomas sometimes plays the role of filing concurrences that follow the logic of majority opinions where it leads — most famously, correctly pointing out that the Court’s reasoning and holding in Dobbs are flatly incompatible with any of the Court’s privacy and sexual autonomy precedents. In today’s case blessing racial gerrymanders, Thomas once again urges the Court to just go ahead and get to the logical end of the road:

This would seem to be a straightforward argument that Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims were wrongly decided, resurrecting some of the most specious arguments in the history of the US Reports. And he doesn’t stop there:

Of course, the idea that the Courts doing anything to enforce Brown (except to “enforce” it by preventing measures to integrate schools) is also John Roberts’s de facto position. It’s not so much that Thomas is more radical than the other Republican nominees as that he’s more honest.