Justice Clarence Thomas - Underrated?

One of my least popular opinions is: Clarence Thomas is underrated. He’s an iconoclast who is unfairly maligned because he doesn’t fit the role people expect of an educated/professional black man. Let alone the fact that he replaced the legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. 

1. He’s a rigorous jurist. He has an original, coherent approach to law and judging. (Coherence will suffice here for consistency. I thought about saying he’s consistent, but I know lawyers could find plenty examples of apparent inconsistencies.) He works hard; he shows up and does his job. His opinions are explanatory and don’t patronize the reader.

2. He’s a free thinker. He’s radical. He always has been. In his youth, he was a left-leaning Black nationalist. Presumably in the pursuit of truth, his worldview evolved as he grew into adulthood. He is unafraid to state and stick with his analysis and conclusions in the face of a hostile, hegemonic ideological consensus. When the most powerful argument is, “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” Thomas is unafraid to ask, “what if we’ve been wrong?” Most lawyers would not stick out their neck in such a needlessly risky manner. Thomas, meanwhile, has seen the consensus move in his direction over time. 

3. He has a compelling life story. He was born into poverty in rural Georgia to a family that didn’t speak English in a house that didn’t have electricity. Raised without a father, he grew up to serve a long tenure as an Associate Justice of the United States.

Of course, there are valid countervailing narratives. Is he flawed? Yes, apparently. But who lacks flaws? The hate he gets, from people who've never read a word of his opinions, is unfair.

Is Clarence Thomas a great jurist? My contention is that he’s underrated. He is definitely misunderstood.