Your post, and the HuffPo link, tell me that Thomas is just sitting there in a robe.

Why in the hell he's just sitting there in a robe, when at least half of us readers would not only look as good in a robe but use at least half our brains and judgment if we were to replace him, I don't know.

Thomas has a Ten Commandment mentality...God said it, I believe it, no one questions God.

From what I've read I get the impression Thomas believes as a justice his perception of the Constitution and the rule of law are set in stone - unchanging. If that were the case, would there ever need to be a Supreme Court - the law is written and people are trained to interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be so there isn't any reason challenge what has already been written and decided.

Too bad the democrats haven't any hair on their balls to challenge him with an impeachment hearing to determine if he really is suitable for being on the court.

As I recall, during Thomas confirmation hearings, stari decisis was a big issue with some who opposed him. They pointed out articles, papers, and speeches in which he advocated fundamental changes in established legal precedent. The defense was that few of his decisions had been overturned so he must be ruling correctly.
The follow on to the logic of the opposition was to point out the difference between an appellate judge and a Supreme. I didn't see it made clear that as an appellate judge he was in a position of only [mostly] deciding whether proper procedure had been followed and whether the decision did in fact follow established law and precedent and that any ruling by him that did set a precedent would be overruled, or at least could be. The critical difference is that as a Supreme he could be effective in changing the law of the land in the goofy direction that he had advocated in his writings.
Now the fat toad cipher doesn't need to ask questions that would stretch out the proceedings and the time that he is required to sit there. He already knows HIS answers, as did the R's who pushed him forward. He gave his answers before ever being nominated.

"Never before has a justice specified a so clearly flawed rationale for departing from the long standing reluctance of the court to revisit existing rulings. Where that departure gives the appearance of being solely about asserting their judicial or ideological view is simply wrong."

But you see, the wingnuts just take what we see as outrageous statements to be simple candor. And there is a reason why. Recall for a moment that for the past nearly 50 years they have been claiming that what Thomas said about the court was true of liberals. They have used all of their Supreme Court appointments during this period as opportunities to do exactly what Thomas said. He is simply confirming the mission he was given as a loyal political hack which is exactly what he, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and to a lesser degree Kennedy are. Kennedy has been a frustration to the wingnuts due to his occassional heresy and reasonableness. Most of the time, however, he can be persuaded to carry out the mission as described by Thomas. That Thomas is not shy about stating his viewpoint is simply an indication of how deeply corrupt he is and how deeply corrupt and rotten the mind of the GOP is. This is nothing but confirmation of what we already know of course. They have every intention, for example of dismantling Roe v Wade bit by bit. Roberts and Alito have been quite clear about how they believe the work should be done on Roe. Scalia, fascist that he is, would not be so subtle. Watch how brazen they are in their upocming decision to allow corporate money into the elections process nationwide. We'll see what the Democratic Congress is made of when that comes down, but I'm afraid we will see that it isn't made of very stern stuff.