Clarence Thomas sets a precedent

The talk of Harry Reid as a racist for disagreeing with Clarence Thomas has thankfully died down, no doubt to be ratcheted back up when Bush nominates him for Chief Justice.

One of James Taranto's main arguments against Reid was there was no evidence that Thomas had "poorly written" opinions. A week too late, I stumble across this site, which list some of Thomas' sole opinions and the shifts they may cause if they became reality:

Stare decisis is one of the most well established principles in the law. Simply put, it means that courts will not overturn established precedent without an extraordinary reason to do so. It is also a doctrine not held sacred by all nine Justices. In Justice Antonin Scalia's words, Justice Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."

Because Justice Thomas does not feel bound by precedent, his opinions often call for substantial shifts in the law.

There's plenty more there, as they examine a number of his decisions. Interesting reading all around.