Prepare your smallest violins. At a recent event at Catholic University's Law School, Justice Clarence Thomas, known for his conservative rulings, revealed why he stopped teaching at George Washington Law. Speaking to his former clerk Jenn Mascott, he cited "unpleasantness" following the controversial Dobbs decision, which rolled back federal abortion protections.

Thomas described his discomfort with continuing his educational role in an environment that no longer seemed welcoming. The Justice, accustomed to controlling classroom dynamics - from syllabus to air conditioning - found the shift in student attitudes post-Dobbs too challenging to manage. This is a man who prefers environments populated by supporters, not critics, even in academic settings.

But let's talk about real unpleasantness. Consider the scenario where people are forced into childbirth based on legal arguments that seem as historically grounded as an episode of *Ancient Aliens*. The conservative legal movement, to which Thomas belongs, often cherry-picks history to support their rulings, a tactic not lost on observers and critics. This method of "idea laundering" is becoming painfully evident as it often bypasses rigorous scholarly scrutiny.

Historically, judges have faced severe repercussions for their stances, from societal ostracization to threats of violence, especially during eras of significant judicial activism like the civil rights movement. Yet, they stood by their decisions. Today's landscape appears different, with some judges displaying a tendency to withdraw or react negatively when faced with opposition or critique.

This movement away from judicial endurance to a more reactionary stance raises questions about the integrity and resilience of our current judiciary. If a few dissenting voices in a university classroom are enough to deter a Justice from teaching, what does that say about our leaders' ability to handle genuine adversity?

Thomas's decision to step back from teaching might reflect a broader reluctance within certain judicial circles to engage openly with opposing views. This avoidance does not bode well for a democratic society, where open debate and robust discussions are foundational. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, one wonders whether our justices will stand firm or retreat when faced with the next wave of "unpleasantness."