Yet more opinion on the issue of the moment; this from Professor Newsom of the law school at Howard University:

“I don’t know whether Thomas’ position is extreme or not, as an *abstract* proposition. I do know that the practical consequences of his views would be horrendous for religious minorities. Without Laycock’s understanding of the Establishment Clause as implicating individual freedom as well as structural or federalism concerns, then, if we adopt Thomas’s views, religious majorities can ride roughshod over religious minorities, and it remains to be seen if the Free Exercise clause could provide a sufficient bulwark or protection against majoritarian overreaching. To bet everything on the Free Exercise clause is a risky proposition, perhaps even extreme. And it does not help any that Thomas, I think, has taken a niggardly view of the protections afforded minority religious interests under the Free Exercise clause. (His opinions and votes in Establishment Clause cases suggest that the individual religious rights don’t count but for so much.) In his world, the bet is a clear loser.

“It might be extreme, therefore, for a Supreme Court Justice to bandy about a view of an important part of the Bill of Rights without having thought through, or, at least, acknowledged and taken responsibility for, the practical real-world consequences of his or her views. If Thomas intends the consequences that I have supposed, then (1) his views are not credible and (2) may well be extreme, deserving of the opprobrium heaped upon them.”

It might, indeed.