I'm not sure what you are saying? I don't know what Clarence Thomas has to do with this, and "he" is incorrect as well if you are referring to me.
Cutting to the chase... You have been describing disparate impact as a philosophical principle in and of itself. Whereas, in reality, disparate impact exists as a matter of political expediency. Its not a doctrine that should be adopted. Its one that may be necessary to adopt when real intentions and real motives are concealed.