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,” ABC News reported.
Thomas, 77, compared his Supreme Court colleagues to passengers on a train, and said: ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.”
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis‚" Thomas said, referring to the legal principle of abiding by precedent. “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
…I have no idea. What the holy fuck did you just say? Was that English, Clarence?
Oh that’s easy, stare decisis for things we like and overturning everything we don’t like. Simple!
“One of the good ones.”
If everything falls to pure fascism, I hope I at least get to see the leopards eat Clarence’s face.
I will hope, but it seems a little unlikely. Somehow, the most craven ones seem to escape justice most of the time. It’s the true believers who rush out to the front, people like Stephen Miller or Alina Habba, who tend to start to catch some strays as the shit hits the fan. The dude who’s sitting in the back quietly doing 100 times more damage seems to eventually get away on a boat to the Seychelles or something. He might get impeached in 5 years, or he might live out his days secure in the knowledge that he can drive his fucking RV around and do whatever he wants.
We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.
What?
Yeah, it’s crazy because, if the train is functioning perfectly fine, and has been for centuries, why does it matter who’s driving it?
He wants to be the driver. That’s why. He calls into question the way things have worked because he wants to take over.
And besides, the train driver does not have any control over the route the train will take.
It’s better than saying, “I’ve been bribed a shit ton and no one is caring, so I’ll say and do whatever I want.”
An orangutan is driving the train and apparently you’re cool with that.
I think he called Trump an orangutan, let’s tell Daddy and get him fired .
There’s pressure valves going off all over the place, and he’s fixing it by shovelling in more coal.
It’s the old orangutan-train-engineer argument, which gained legal precedent in Plessy v. Ferguson, brought by passage of an 1887 Florida law, whereby states began to require that railroads furnish separate accommodations for each race.
arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,”
This is correct, but not in the sense that he provides. Society changes, what was okay before may not be okay now. Weighing precedent and modern society is a careful process. Tossing off precedent should have justification for why it’s being shrug and there needs to a preponderance that this is indeed the shift of society.
Walking in and saying, “well we should just outright critical” is absolutely not the way to do it. Overturning previous case law should happen, but that shouldn’t be the fucking default. And when you do overturn previous case law, you really need to bring a fuck ton of support, not, “meh we changed our mind.” Being a contrarian for sake of rocking the boat isn’t how our highest court should operate.
Yes, but on the other hand: he got his and fuck yours.
Sure. Why should the third car on the train follow the cars ahead? Break free from the track, accept the bribe, jump the rails and chart your own course.
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Is he admitting this is how he writes his opinions?
It’s also meaningless, in the sense that it describes the entirety of society.
Going to flight school before piloting a 737 full of passengers is just a social construct, brah.
Thank you for illustrating the definition of thought terminating cliche. That’s like, my entire point.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, I was making a joke about it as if we were having a conversation or posting on a message board.
Like you mentioned, it was to further illustrate your point, and to bring some levity to the situation. My apologies.
Oof. This has turned into a pretty good example of why I think it’s stupid when people basically get offended when people don’t “get the joke” in regards to written sarcasm. But I clearly misinterpreted your intention, and made no attempt to get clarification - so my bad! Sorry about that.
Petition to make every fediverse comment require narration so that sarcasm can be easily detected.
Goddamn liberals and their aggressive reasonableness!
/s
BUT this DOESNT APply to Their Rulings! THEIR rulings ARE Gospel!
He needs to be removed.
*His head needs to be removed.
Brought to you by the guillotine gang.
I’m a fan of burning at the stake, but I won’t turn down beheading.
Why not both?
I suppose we could warm them up on the stake and then finish it on the guillotine
#GuillotineParty
isclarencethomasdeadyet
The bible is something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. God doesn’t write.
Supreme court justices are not actually that great at reasoning, especially the conservatives. Everyone should listen to 5-4, they do a great job revealing just how stupid the supreme court can be.
deleted by creator
There is definitely some of that, probably even mostly that, but you’ll never convince me Sam Alito is even a middling intellect
“Because I was paid to”
Corrupt! Fuck this dude. He single handedly has been a main factor of why the US has gone to shit.
Not just him don’t forget Roberts.
Alito
Roberts, between his hatred of fair elections and manipulation of the gullible press that echoed his “balls and strikes” myth making, might be the person most detrimental to US democracy
These people are the real “Satanists”. They believe in a will to power and nothing else.
Hey hey, don’t lump the satanists in with these pieces of shit, they are actually generally pretty cool in my experience.
That’s why I used scare quotes, and not that “Satan worship” is even “real”, historically speaking, in so much as it represents the exaltation of material reality and the nihilistic pursuit of power for personal worldly gain, these “Christians” exemplify it far more than the self-described “Satanists”.
“Left wing activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges! The left! The left wing activist judges!”
… fucking projection ass hypocrites. Always.
Legislating from the bench!!!
We can NEVER forget that this is what they do
