So he was appearing at a rare speaking engagement:
The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
Truthfully? No. Because there are no Bill of Obligations and Bill of Representions in the U.S. Constitution. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.
Now perhaps Thomas was speaking euphamistically, or speaking to something not law-related. But it is troubling that his mindset seems to be in the "anti-rights" camp. He's a Supreme, after all.