Justice Thomas just admitted he wants to burn down the very idea that courts should obey precedent

[babylonsister]

Justice Thomas just admitted he wants to burn down the very idea that courts should obey precedent
Arson, but for the rule of law.
Ian Millhiser
Jun 17, 2019, 1:15 pm


Justice Clarence Thomas has long approached the law the same way that Heath Ledger’s Joker approaches urban peace. He’s suggested that federal child labor laws and the ban on whites-only lunch counters are unconstitutional, written opinions that would blow up multiple federal agencies, and argued that high school students lack First Amendment rights because 17th century self-help books told parents to be cruel to their children.

Yet, on Monday — after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court — Thomas finally articulated his approach to stare decisis, the principle that courts should generally follow the rules announced in past decisions.

And, oh boy, is Thomas’ opinion in Gamble v. United States a doozy.

Though Thomas dresses up his concurring opinion in Gamble with a few paragraphs that seem to soften his conclusion, the rule he ultimately articulates would give his court free reign to burn down any decision that five of its members do not like. It’s the kind of judicial arson one might expect from a justice who, after spending much of his career writing lone dissents that had little impact on his colleagues, now thinks he may have the votes to do things his way.

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple,” Thomas writes. “We should not follow it.” That may seem like a workable rule — how bad does a decision have to be before it is “demonstrably erroneous?” — but bear in mind that this rule comes from a man who has serious doubts about child labor laws.

more...

https://thinkprogress.org/clarence-thomas-stare-decisis-gamble-precedent-supreme-court-01db0676d84b/

[dlk]

1. The Problem with Zealots...

[ilmare2000]

2. This is what conservatives have been fighting for for decades

And now they own the court. But people like Susan Sarandon come along and say the election doesn't matter. We will feel the effects of this for decades.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. THAT is judicial activism ON STEROIDS ! ! !

[zipplewrath]

4. Both wrong and right

He's not wrong, but the problem is in the expression "demonstrably". When the court overturned "separate but equal" it is because the plaintiffs brought in evidence that it didn't exist. There was no evidence of "separate but equal". The problem with Thomas is that his definition of "demonstrably" is that "he doesn't agree". Judges aren't suppose to work that way. The petitioners are supposed to make the case, not them.

[elias7]

5. WTF does it mean to be a "conservative"?

No respect for tradition? No regard for precedent?

These people are too stupid to be hypocrites.

[defacto7]

6. It seems we've reached a point in human evolution where time

is beginning to flow backward; it's a regression in human decency from the top down.

[struggle4progress]

7. He's a partisan hack. "Stare decisis" produces a predictable legal environment

in which people have some idea what the law is, rather than having it blow erratically back and forth constantly