If you follow the Supreme Court, you probably know that "I would have gone further" is a maxim usually associated with Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, given that he often has a more extreme view of the Constitution than his fellow justices. And even if you don't, you've probably gotten the basic idea that "CT," as he's called around the Supreme Court building, is — in Sesame Street-ese — not like the others, even the other conservative justices.
Until the court took its arguments virtual, he almost never asked questions of advocates. Unlike other justices who teach courses in Austria during the court's recess, Thomas spends his summers driving around the country in his RV, often parking overnight at the nearest Walmart. And he's known to many as the court's most loyal conservative — so much so that his dissents often carry a "why stop here?" kind of parlance.
"Going further" is a position he seems to be taking with respect to his tenure on the court as well. Nominated and confirmed in 1991, Thomas is the longest-serving current justice, and already in the Top 20 for longest-tenured justices ever, despite the fact that two others are considerably older than he is.
For almost thirty years, progressives like me have shrunk back in horror at the thought that Thomas's outlier view of the Constitution might eventually become law. In many dissents, he has advocated for gun rights, against abortion, for government establishment of religion, and against school speech. We don't like Thomas's approach to those cases. But in the case of whether Thomas decides to stay on the court as he approaches his 30th anniversary? Going further — in terms of time — sounds great.
It's not like having Clarence Thomas on the court for another year is something for progressives to celebrate, 30 years or no. In that year, important law could be made and lasting precedent set (although, as we saw in last week's abortion decision, Thomas, on the whole, does not view precedent as nearly as important as what he considers a "correct" result).
But if Thomas does not follow the recent tradition of justices retiring during or just after the last week of the Supreme Court term, he will almost certainly be on the court until the November election. With polls showing Biden ahead by 10 points, it's likely that a Thomas vacancy would be filled by a liberal justice, a paradigmatic example of karma coming home to roost.
But you might say even if Thomas retired this week, Trump could not appoint his replacement, right? In 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia died and President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and friends blocked the nomination, citing the "rule" that no Supreme Court appointments should take place in a Presidential election year.
Yeah, no. Not that it really was a "rule" in the first place, but McConnell weaseled his way out of that one last year, "explaining" that the "rule" had something to do with the Senate and the President and the parties they represente
