Stevens and Breyer are dubious that Thomas is somehow being bought off to change his position on Obamacare case

My question is if those opposed to Clarence Thomas sitting on the Obamacare case were asked how Thomas would decide on the case without this supposed undue influence, what would they say? I would think that all of those opposed to Thomas would think that he would rule in exactly the same way that they say that the money is supposedly causing him to rule. Note also that the reaction of the Justices to the notion that a member of the court could be bought off. It is too bad that they don't view campaign donations in the same way.

According to The Associated Press, Stevens made his position clear during a recent talk at Princeton University. “I would say that I wouldn’t think there’s any possibility that any of the activities of Mrs. Thomas have had any impact on the analysis of Judge Thomas,” Stevens said. “He has definite views; he’s been consistent over the years.”

Breyer recently said at the Aspen Ideas Festival that it’s a “false issue,” when an audience member coyly asked a “what if” question mirroring the Thomas situation. “As far as what your wife does or your husband does, I myself try to stick to a certain principle, and feel very strongly about it, that a wife or a husband is an independent person and they make up their own minds what their career is going to be.” Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was on the panel, and concurred with Breyer that the current court is not politically influenced in any way. . . .