He simultaneously says that corporations have First Amendment rights to donate unlimited money to politicians, but have no First Amendment rights to moderate content on their social networks.
He's a hack that just does whatever is best for conservatives.
I explained very clearly what the contradiction in Thomas' rulings is which leads me to my conclusion.
You can have an opinion about whether that's right ... but its hardly simplistic.
Being simplistic would be having the view that he's a hack without any evidence.
I don't say he's a hack lightly. If you look at his decisions he uses one path of reasoning in one set of decisions and then uses the opposite path of reasoning to come to a different conclusion in a different set of decisions, depending on how the outcome needs to come out. And then he claims he's being textual. Its nonsensical.
Edit: TBF you're being very simplistic assuming my comment illustrates a worldview. What worldview is that? Look at my comment history. I'm generally free-market and maximal-corporate rights ... aligned with Thomas. I just think his reasoning is flawed.
He simultaneously says that corporations have First Amendment rights to donate unlimited money to politicians, but have no First Amendment rights to moderate content on their social networks.
He's a hack that just does whatever is best for conservatives.