Why does Clarence Thomas frequently concur in the judgment?

[Greedo punched first]

Every justice has concurred in the judgment at least once, but why does Clarence Thomas do it far more frequently than the other 8?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning even though ideologically he's a run-of-the-mill conservative hack.

[Greedo punched first]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning even though ideologically he's a run-of-the-mill conservative hack.

He's not run-of-the-mill. He's the only justice who has called for Batson v. Kentucky and NY Times v. Sullivan to be overruled. He's the only justice who has ever compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis. He's the only justice who has ever cited James O'Keefe.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning even though ideologically he's a run-of-the-mill conservative hack.

He's not run-of-the-mill. He's the only justice who has called for Batson v. Kentucky and NY Times v. Sullivan to be overruled. He's the only justice who has ever compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis. He's the only justice who has ever cited James O'Keefe.

I know what you mean, and Thomas is one of my least favorite people in American public life, but in fairness to him, presumably the two justices who dissented in Batson (the incumbent and immediate future Chief Justice, no less) also felt that it ought to be (if possible) overruled.

[Greedo punched first]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning even though ideologically he's a run-of-the-mill conservative hack.

He's not run-of-the-mill. He's the only justice who has called for Batson v. Kentucky and NY Times v. Sullivan to be overruled. He's the only justice who has ever compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis. He's the only justice who has ever cited James O'Keefe.

I know what you mean, and Thomas is one of my least favorite people in American public life, but in fairness to him, presumably the two justices who dissented in Batson (the incumbent and immediate future Chief Justice, no less) also felt that it ought to be (if possible) overruled.

Did Chief Justice Burger and future Chief Justice Rehnquist (the dissenters) want Batson overruled? Rehnquist had the chance to overrule Miranda v. Arizona and refused. We know Kavanaugh doesn't want to overrule Batson.

[Skill and Chance]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning even though ideologically he's a run-of-the-mill conservative hack.

He's not run-of-the-mill. He's the only justice who has called for Batson v. Kentucky and NY Times v. Sullivan to be overruled. He's the only justice who has ever compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis. He's the only justice who has ever cited James O'Keefe.

I know what you mean, and Thomas is one of my least favorite people in American public life, but in fairness to him, presumably the two justices who dissented in Batson (the incumbent and immediate future Chief Justice, no less) also felt that it ought to be (if possible) overruled.

Did Chief Justice Burger and future Chief Justice Rehnquist (the dissenters) want Batson overruled? Rehnquist had the chance to overrule Miranda v. Arizona and refused. We know Kavanaugh doesn't want to overrule Batson.

Well, there is substantial history of justices dissenting from a case when initially decided but declining to overrule the precedent in a later case.  That's a big part of how the Supreme Court works institutionally. 

Consider: Roberts dissented in Obergefell back in 2015.  Could you ever see him joining an opinion overruling it now?

[Greedo punched first]

Because he genuinely has a somewhat idiosyncratic style of legal reasoning even though ideologically he's a run-of-the-mill conservative hack.

He's not run-of-the-mill. He's the only justice who has called for Batson v. Kentucky and NY Times v. Sullivan to be overruled. He's the only justice who has ever compared Planned Parenthood to the Nazis. He's the only justice who has ever cited James O'Keefe.

I know what you mean, and Thomas is one of my least favorite people in American public life, but in fairness to him, presumably the two justices who dissented in Batson (the incumbent and immediate future Chief Justice, no less) also felt that it ought to be (if possible) overruled.

Did Chief Justice Burger and future Chief Justice Rehnquist (the dissenters) want Batson overruled? Rehnquist had the chance to overrule Miranda v. Arizona and refused. We know Kavanaugh doesn't want to overrule Batson.

Well, there is substantial history of justices dissenting from a case when initially decided but declining to overrule the precedent in a later case.  That's a big part of how the Supreme Court works institutionally. 

Consider: Roberts dissented in Obergefell back in 2015.  Could you ever see him joining an opinion overruling it now?

I'm not sure, the only gay marriage case (Pavan v. Smith), where Roberts didn't publicly dissent, has a per curiam opinion. Justices don't always make their votes public in per curiam opinions.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Because he wants to appear like something other then a right wing hack. Regardless, he would have never been on the court if it wasnt for dems and their moronic reasoning of voting yes on his nomination not to appear racist. God I hate my party

[Greedo punched first]

[He] would have never been on the court if it wasnt for dems and their moronic reasoning of voting yes on his nomination not to appear racist. God I hate my party

Remember that most of the Democrats who supported Thomas were blue dogs, not liberals. Blue dogs were very common then (David Boren, John Breaux, Alan Dixon, Jim Exon, etc.). Stop pretending that “liberals confirmed Thomas”.