Justice Thomas' Speech: Political Attacks, Unanswered Judicial Questions
Dr. David Adler · April 29, 2026
Justice Clarence Thomas's controversial speech at the University of Texas, which began as a commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, inexplicably meandered across disconnected political postulates, reflected significant historical errors and left unanswered fundamental questions about the judicial ascertainment and enforcement of natural rights. His remarks then descended into an unusual, extra-judicial political diatribe against progressivism, which he declared an existential threat to the United States since it represents an effort to replace the principles of the Declaration. His indictment of American progressives, whom he blames for policies, programs and practices that have wreaked so much havoc for more than a century, casts doubt on the survival of our culture and nation.
Members only. Join for $19.99/month
More on Constitution & the Courts
James Madison: The President May Pervert His Administration into a Scheme of Peculation and Oppression
James Madison's prescient warning about a president who might engineer a scheme of deep-seated and pervasive corruption, grounded in self-dealing to enrich himself and strengthen his ties to law-breaking loyalists through arbitrary acts that violate the Constitution and republican principles, reverberates across the nation at this juncture in our history as Americans learn more details about President Donald Trump's underhanded operations.
Trump's Slush Fund Reflects Concentration of Power in the Executive, Collapse of Constitutional Guardrails
One of the grave consequences for American Constitutionalism of the untrammeled concentration of power in the hands of President Donald Trump--the putative goal of Project 2025--is his total control over the Department of Justice.
Readers Ask About Restraining Presidential Warmaking: Replying to Thoughtful Questions
Few exercises of governmental power trigger more questions about constitutionality and legality, not to mention considerations of wisdom and judgment, than warmaking, particularly unilateral presidential warmaking.
