to the exceedingly loyal Constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas.
That makes no sense.
Constitutionalism is required of all justices. It is referenced in every decision and opinion. So, they are all "loyal" to the Constitution.
If that were the case, every decision would be 9-0.
It would be nice.
But the Constitution is a relatively small simple document, purposefully. It is used to govern 350M people who have complex issues.
Plus we have republicans and democrats on the court. You could say that Thomas is "loyal" to one of those.
I say Thomas is loyal to the Constitution and its original meaning.
Have you read the dissenting opinion?
You;re funny. You don't believe a school has the duty and obligation to discipline a kid's bad behavior yet it is alright to censor speech of doctors, scientists, and researchers who disagree with the fraud Fauxchi. Seriously, you are a joke.
First of all there was no originalism in Thomas' dissent.
The notion that the "loco parentis doctrine" applies to someone who was firmly in the custody her parents is the joke. Not a single justice or lessor court agree with that.
I seriously don't think Thomas is against the first amendment, he was just appeasing his puritan buddies.
No doctors were censored, real gov't censorship is illegal.