I looked at his concurrence and my impression was that he's saying that if substantive due process goes the way of the dodo then those decisions need to be revisited, but he didn't say reversed, and I got the impression that he wants at least some of them on a more solid foundation.
> then those decisions need to be revisited, but he didn't say reversed
Lol, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Thomas dissented vociferously in both Lawrence and Obergefell, it's clear he wants to overturn them, not even he is trying to hide that fact. His Obergefell dissent was especially nauseating because he was trying to say how we was so "offended" that Loving was even construed to be analogous to Obergefell.
He's a typical "I've got mine, fuck you" conservative.
Thomas said we could maybe think about finding a different justification for some of those rights “[a]fter overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions." Sounds like he wants them reversed to me!
