In a stunning display of judicial dissent, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has unleashed a scathing critique on his colleagues over the court’s handling of due process rights, particularly in high-stakes death penalty cases. In a recent ruling, Thomas vehemently opposed the majority’s decision to stay the execution of Reuben Gutierrez, a man convicted 26 years ago for murder, arguing that the court is fabricating rights out of thin air.

Thomas, joining a dissenting opinion, lambasted the majority for what he claims is a perversion of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He accused them of expanding the definition of “liberty” to include non-existent rights, undermining the very fabric of constitutional law. “The Constitution does not require any state to establish procedures for prisoners to challenge their convictions post-trial,” he asserted, emphasizing that Gutierrez had already received ample legal process.

This explosive dissent comes on the heels of another significant ruling involving Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, where the conservative majority ruled that states can block taxpayer dollars from going to the abortion provider, a move celebrated by anti-abortion advocates. The court’s ideological divide was stark, with the three liberal justices fiercely opposing the decision.

As the Supreme Court grapples with contentious issues surrounding life, death, and individual rights, Thomas’s remarks signal a deepening rift within the judiciary. With the stakes higher than ever, the implications of these rulings will reverberate through the legal landscape, challenging established norms of due process and state rights. The legal community watches closely as these decisions could redefine the boundaries of justice in America.