Robert Reich recently made some rather sharp comments about the Supreme Court. If before he considered Samuel Alito — the very person who signed the Roe v. Wade decision — to be the main enemy of the judicial system, now his position has changed. According to Reich, Clarence Thomas represents something far more dangerous.

What happened? Thomas delivered a speech where he allegedly praised American ideals, but in reality, he launched an entire pamphlet against progressivism. He stated that progressives are responsible for the worst crimes in history, directly linking Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao to the rise of the progressive movement. Reich calls this “complete nonsense” and explains why.

According to him, the historical basis on which Clarence Thomas builds his argument is frankly distorted. In fact, progressive reforms and the New Deal policies were a shield against fascism in America, not its facilitator. Reich reminds us that it was the progressive era that gave the country a progressive tax, estate taxes, laws protecting food and medicines, as well as the first restrictions on corporate influence. Without these reforms, which continued into the 1930s, America could very well have repeated the fate of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

But the issue is not only historical errors. Reich points to a serious ethical problem: Clarence Thomas repeatedly participated in cases related to the 2020 elections, even though his wife Ginny was directly involved in efforts to overturn the results. She actively worked with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, exchanged 29 text messages with him, spreading false theories about the elections and demanding action from the administration. Ginny also served on the board of the organization leading the “Stop the Steal” movement. And all this time, Thomas refused to recuse himself.

There are also other conflicts of interest. At the beginning of his speech, Clarence Thomas mentioned his “dear friends” Harlan and Kathy Crow, who turned out to be major donors to the Republican Party. Over two decades, they gifted Thomas with personal presents, invited him on luxury yachts, and financed his wife’s political organization. Coincidence? Reich does not think so.

“Clarence Thomas completely misinterpreted everything, and in the opposite direction,” Reich summarizes. And he ultimately declares him his candidate for the worst judge in the modern history of the Supreme Court. It’s a strong statement, but Reich supports it with concrete facts — from historical revisionism to blatant disregard for judicial ethics.