Robert Reich argues that Clarence Thomas is worse than Samuel Alito because Thomas's recent speech falsely equates progressivism with fascism while ignoring how Progressive Era reforms actually protected against fascist movements in 1930s Europe. The core claim—that Thomas gave this speech on April 15 at UT Austin—is verified by multiple sources. Reich's historical counterargument that Progressive reforms were anti-fascist safeguards is credible but contested; conservative scholars argue differently about progressivism's ideological lineage. What's missing: the specific substantive rebuttals from Thomas's own jurisprudential framework, which the Dispatch piece partially covers—Thomas and other originalists argue progressivism itself undermined constitutional limits on government power, making it a separate concern from fascism.