Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a reputation for not speaking out as the court hears oral arguments. The new term opened today and Thomas has set a new tone. He was the first one out of the box to ask a question. He is being credited for changing up the way the justices ask questions. Thomas and the pandemic have changed the order in questioning during oral arguments. The first case Monday involved a dispute over groundwater between Tennessee and Mississippi.

During the pandemic, Thomas was more actively involved in asking questions of lawyers before the court when the court worked remotely. Thomas was critical of the process for asking questions pre-pandemic and found a more acceptable one as the justices worked remotely. Pre-pandemic the justices interrupted counsel with a barrage of rapid-fire questions in no particular order. Thomas didn’t like that system. So, he remained quiet. During the pandemic, the justices asked questions in order – a descending order of seniority. All of the justices participated in this system. Now that the court is in session in-person, Thomas seems to have determined a change is in order. He jumped in and asked the first question.

The new system starts with an extended period of rapid-fire questioning followed by a more orderly opportunity for individual questioning by each justice at the end. But Thomas didn’t wait for the structured time and instead jumped right into the questioning in a way he almost never did before the pandemic.

The first case of the Supreme Court term on Monday is a dispute over ground water between Tennessee and Mississippi. Mississippi alleges that Tennessee is essentially stealing ground water by pumping too much from a shared aquifer.

Thomas peppered the Mississippi lawyer with several more tough questions after his first one.

The 2021-2022 Supreme Court term is the first full term with a new 6-3 conservative majority. Former Thomas clerk and Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino said Thomas is just stepping forward and embracing the moment. He’s coming forward as the intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. That should give heartburn to all three liberal justices, maybe a couple of the conservative ones, too.

There is a proposal in Georgia involving Justice Thomas that is causing anger among Georgia Democrats over a proposal that a statue of Thomas is displayed on the grounds of the Georgia statehouse. Republicans strongly support the idea, not so much with the Democrats. Shocking, I know.

“I’d rather them keep a Confederate monument than a statue of Clarence Thomas,” Democratic state Rep. Donna McLeod told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “That’s how much I don’t like the idea.”

McLeod’s comment recalls the fierce outcry from Democrats who demanded the immediate removal of Confederate monuments nationwide as protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s death engaged in the destruction and removal of statues depicting either slave owners or Confederate heroes.

Democrats strongly opposed Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court when allegations of sexual harassment came to light. Anita Hill’s allegations led to rigorous Senate Judiciary Committee hearings led by then-Sen. Joe Biden.

Bad news for Rep. McLeod – Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52-48 vote in 1991. She can continue to hold a decades-long grudge but Thomas has contributed to the Supreme Court as a solid conservative. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. After the contentious confirmation hearing he experienced – he called it “an electronic lynching” at the time – it is good to see him step forward as a leader. That confirmation hearing and the Bork hearing are two that are pointed to as the beginning of the take-no-prisoners approach to Supreme Court nominations today. Each nomination has gotten worse, more politicized than the last one, and the country is the worse for it. In the case of Anita Hill, she never provided compelling proof of her allegations against Thomas. She came off sounding like a woman scorned. Joe Biden didn’t show her much support at the time, either. He ended up having to apologize to Hill for his behavior as chairman of the hearing in order to appease feminists during his presidential campaign.