• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clarence Thomas Gives Bonkers Reason for SCOTUS to Tear Up Settled Laws

B

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
62,361
Reaction score
52,126
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Justice Clarence Thomas is finding increasingly creative ways to justify reshaping long-standing laws.

During a rare appearance at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the George H.W. Bush–appointed justice said the Supreme Court should take a more critical approach to settled precedent, arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,”

Who on the right wants to tell us what Thomas means? We can all read his words but what does he mean?

I think the very first sentence is what he means. Or, who cares what a decided case is from fifty years ago, I'm out to try to change those decisions. Changing settled law, the gop are experts.
 
Well, if liberals ever control the court, you will be right there demanding that they overturn every conservative opinion of the last 50 years
 
This is in line with what Clarence Thomas has long said he believes.

Although he is conservative, he has never been a conservative in the same mold as the other conservative justices. Whereas most of them have a "Don't rock the boat too much, and take into account the chaos caused by sudden changes" conservative mindset, Clarence Thomas has a "Reshape legal precedent according to my ideology, and if it causes chaos that's not my problem" mindset.
 
bongsaway said:
Who... wants to tell us what Thomas means?

I think the very first sentence is what he means.
Click to expand...

We know what Thomas means, he is arguing to knock down what is left of the concept of legal precedence. It was handing by a thread anyway but Thomas found the scissors.

The Constitution is now subject to political whim, much to the delight of the MAGA cult.
 
I think it means that SCOTUS can make a mistake, and we shouldn't let the age of that mistake erase the reality that it is a mistake.

By way of example, Plessy v Ferguson stood as valid case law for half a century, but its tenure as law didn't make it correct law.
 
Fletch said:
Well, if liberals ever control the court, you will be right there demanding that they overturn every conservative opinion of the last 50 years
Click to expand...

Of course.

You broke it. You bought it.


Just kidding. You know as well as anyone Democrats will fall all over themselves to bring back normalcy. There is zero downside risk to Republicans embracing fascism. Well ... other than the fascism part but you people support that.
 
What happens when you dislike the correction?
 

Plessy v Ferguson. The Gender Queer: A Memoir of bad faith arguments about the Court.
 
Precedents should not be overturned on a whim but they are not sacrosanct. The court gets it wrong sometimes. Would anyone seriously argue that Dred Scott or Plessy v Furgeson were correct?

And more to the point if you are not a textualist you by default pretty much do not care about about precedence.
 
MAGA parents have tons of gay kids.

It's gonna be very interesting watching them explain, to their gay married kids, why they voted to have their marriages annulled or not legal or whatever.

Yet more broken families during the Trump era.
 
He's all on board the Project 2025 choo-choo.
 
I guess no one knows better than that grifting disgrace./S
 
CaughtInThe said:
MAGA parents have tons of gay kids.

It's gonna be very interesting watching them explain, to their gay married kids, why they voted to have their marriages annulled or not legal or whatever.

Yet more broken families during the Trump era.
Click to expand...

Obergefell v Hodges is low stakes and costs almost nothing. It lets the partisan Republicans on the Bench say, "See? We are neutral arbiters," while they continue down the path of fascism and protecting the moneyed interests from democratic institutions.

It is not going anywhere.
 
    • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896):
      Homer Plessy, an African American, challenged a Louisiana law requiring "equal but separate" railroad cars for different races. The Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, ruled that this separation did not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, provided the facilities were of equal quality.
        • Pervasive Segregation:
          The ruling provided a legal justification for widespread racial segregation across the nation.
        • Systemic Inequality:
          In practice, the "equal" facilities for African Americans were often substandard, underfunded, and inferior to those provided for white citizens.
        • A "Badge of Inferiority":
          The Supreme Court's decision was seen by critics, including dissenting Justice John Marshall Harlan, as stamping Black Americans with a "badge of inferiority" and undermining the principle of equality.
          • Transportation
          • Schools
          • Restaurants
          • Hospitals
          • Parks
          • Water fountains
            While the doctrine promised equal facilities, the reality was that services and resources for Black Americans were almost universally inferior and underfunded.
        And it only took fifty eight years to what most folks knew slavery was morally wrong but their own prejudices allowed them to make it ok. **** Jesus.
 
And what are you trying to say with this copy-and-paste job?
 
BabaVoss said:
So I we just flip back and forth with the wind of whichever political party has power?
Click to expand...
No, we also have Constitutional law.

BabaVoss said:
I like the idea of living by the rule of law better. Regardless of which party has power at the moment.

.
Click to expand...
I am discussing the rule of law. Didn't you recognize it?
 
NatMorton said:
No, we also have Constitutional law.


I am discussing the rule of law. Didn't you recognize it?
Click to expand...
You suggest that by voting we can change the interpretation of the law.
How do you reconcile the two?
 
NatMorton said:
And what are you trying to say with this copy-and-paste job?
Click to expand...
It was a ****ed up law and everyone knew it, even the supreme court. However, money talks and king cotton had an extremely loud voice. Why did it take almost sixty years to overturn? RvW is a personal decision that the right would love to take away from women. SCotus is nothing more than a majority who decides what the law is, right or wrong. This supreme court with Thomas in it is corrupt.
 
Fletch said:
Well, if liberals ever control the court, you will be right there demanding that they overturn every conservative opinion of the last 50 years
Click to expand...
No, but they might demand that they overturn this court's decision that actually violate the very constitution with their decisions in order to go along with Trump's desires. It is why the court is underwater with the public. AN example is the decision to give Trump complete immunity. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the president that right. In fact, by giving the legislative members the right to limited immunity while not giving that same right to the president, you would believe that they were excluding the president for a reason.
 
I think the con majority SCOTUS is now very obviously part of the Trump criminal enterprise. They eased their way into over a period of time, and now it is complete. Are we used to it yet? Cue the Mussolini "retirement" picture for clarity.
 
Thomas is just a corrupt and fanatical servant of oligarchy who doesn't understand the principles of the law or care about them, who is saying he wants to overturn precedents to re-write the constitution for his agenda. It's the "legislating from the bench" the right whines about so much, but does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…