Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas has been heavily criticized for a speech made against progressive politics.
Thomas delivered a scathing critique of progressivism during a speech at the University of Texas Austin Law School, characterizing the political philosophy as fundamentally incompatible with American constitutional principles. Thomas argued that progressivism seeks to replace the foundational premises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.
"Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government," Thomas stated. "[Progressivism] holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government.
"It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights."
Heather Digby Parton, writing for Salon, suggested the speech highlighted an ongoing problem in America's right-wing politics. She wrote, "Coming from the mouth of an associate justice of the Supreme Court, those words — and their implications — are jaw-dropping and cause for alarm.
"If you read between the lines, he is saying that the country is at war, and the battles are not just political or philosophical. They are also spiritual.
"But Thomas’ attack on the left is really just a slightly more elegant indictment than the ones you might read on an obscure Reddit thread, or have read on an old Usenet forum back in the 1990s."
"But Clarence Thomas, like many conservatives in this misbegotten era, suffers from Fox News brainrot, a condition that encourages them to wallow in the bitterness of their own experience while believing the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of people who refuse to accept the way things are supposed to work."
Political analysts previously criticized Thomas' speech, with political scientist and The Atlantic contributing editor Norman Ornstein calling the 76-year-old judge the "most corrupt justice in the history of the United States."
Investigative journalist Jacke Singh added, "Um. Wow. An outright psyop attempt. Narrative inversion. Manipulation. From a sitting Justice."
