You know Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger were of the same judicial philosophy when the joined the Court. They even attended the same law class. And Burger voted with Blackmun on Roe. He did. He said, yes. I see where your argument is going here. You're talking about past cases involving personal autonomy, like Olmstead. But they started seeing less and less, eye to eye. Finally Bowers, in 1986, was too much for Burger. That was where he drew the line. They split for good. And they were never friends again. Scalia was the same way, when he joined. Then in 1989, with the flag burning case, he started changing and evolving his opinion. On substantive due process and stare decisis, he said. Thomas isn't there yet. He believes in the substantive First Amendment view of porn, he tells people. And in simulated child pornography in 2002 with Ashcroft. Why not, he said. But as a Catholic, and in the defense of life, that embryo, he will never compromise. So first Burger wasn't conservative enough for you religious nuts? And now that you know Antonin Scalia, and even Amy Coney Barrett, won't let you shove school prayer down are kids' throats, you want a theocracy? From the Bible, instead of Constitution? Go to h*ll.
Sometimes they "evolve", but not usually. I wouldn't hold my breath on Thomas. He's thoroughly corrupt and drunk with his "you can't touch me" power. Same with Alito.
