Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming docket

Settled legal precedent in the US is not gospel and in some instances may have been something somebody dreamt up and others went along with, the US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas has said.

Thomas part of the conservative supermajority that has taken hold of the supreme court over Donald Trumps two presidencies delivered those comments Thursday at the Catholic University of Americas Columbus School of Law in Washington DC, ABC News and other outlets reported. His remarks preceded the nine-month term that the supreme court is scheduled to begin on 6 October.

I dont think that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, Thomas said during the rare public appearance, invoking a term which in a religious context is often used to refer to the word of God. And I do give perspective to the precedent. But the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.

Among the various cases Thomas and his colleagues are expected to weigh in on is a request to overturn the 2015 Obergefell supreme court decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. Other cases being mulled by the supreme court for its 2025-2026 term involve tariffs, trans rights, campaign finance law, religious rights and capital punishment.

Thomas was in the 5-4 minority that voted against the Obergefell decision.

Trumps first presidency yielded him three supreme court picks that gave the panel a conservative supermajority which has frequently ruled in his favor after he returned to the White House in January.

In June 2022, as Joe Bidens presidency interrupted Trumps terms, that conservative supermajority also struck down the federal abortion rights which had been established decades earlier by the Roe v Wade supreme court precedent. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he urged the court to reconsider all substantive due process precedents, including in Obergefell as well as cases involving rights to contraception and same-sex intimacy.

Thomas reportedly told those listening to him at the Catholic University that he feels no obligation to hew to precedent if I find it doesnt make any sense.

I think we should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis, Thomas said. If its totally stupid, and thats what theyve decided, you dont go along with it just because its decided.

In June 2022, as Joe Bidens presidency interrupted Trumps terms, that conservative supermajority also struck down the federal abortion rights which had been established decades earlier by the Roe v Wade supreme court precedent. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in which he urged the court to reconsider all substantive due process precedents, including in Obergefell as well as cases involving rights to contraception and same-sex intimacy.

Thomas reportedly told those listening to him at the Catholic University that he feels no obligation to hew to precedent if I find it doesnt make any sense.

I think we should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis, Thomas said. If its totally stupid, and thats what theyve decided, you dont go along with it just because its decided.

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

I wonder how bad it has to get before there is judicial reform

Don't forget interacial marriage!

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

Who's ready to lose some rights, eh? Eh? Eh?

Thank God we stopped that horrible laughing tyrant Kamala though!

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

when was the last time the US had three illegitimate branches of government all at once?

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

Even if Harris won, this wouldn't have changed the supreme court makeup. And dems don't currently control congress to pass laws protecting anything at risk of being overturned by the court.

We're losing same sex marriage and birthright citizenship, aren't we?

And maybe interracial marriage

Would there even be a need to bring this to vote?

Don't you guys (the USA) have same-sex and interracial marriage protected by statute law ("Respect for Marriage Act" 2022) now instead of purely by common law (court precedent)? Even if your Supreme Court rules the 1960s precedent rulings are invalid, the 2022 legislation applies on top of that and would still apply.
If they want to get rid of it they'd have to rule the legislation itself violates the constitution. Or Republicans could repeal it in the legislature.

Don't you guys (the USA) have same-sex and interracial marriage protected by statute law ("Respect for Marriage Act" 2022) now instead of purely by common law (court precedent)? Even if your Supreme Court rules the 1960s precedent rulings are invalid, the 2022 legislation applies on top of that and would still apply.
If they want to get rid of it they'd have to rule the legislation itself violates the constitution. Or Republicans could repeal it in the legislature.

Destroying stare decisis to own the libs

Judicial reform isn't happening under Republican rule.

Don't you guys (the USA) have same-sex and interracial marriage protected by statute law ("Respect for Marriage Act" 2022) now instead of purely by common law (court precedent)? Even if your Supreme Court rules the 1960s precedent rulings are invalid, the 2022 legislation applies on top of that and would still apply.
If they want to get rid of it they'd have to rule the legislation itself violates the constitution. Or Republicans could repeal it in the legislature.

I'm just assuming your courts can't revoke statute law just because they feel like it, unlike how they can with common law. Meaning it doesn't matter what they say about Obergefell because a higher law gives you same-sex marriage. If they wanted to get rid of it they'd have to repeal the legislation, which I imagine would be pretty easy if Republicans have a majority, but the court wouldn't have anything to do with that.

As the Court prepares to revisit the same ground it stood on less than two years ago, the question is no longer whether Section 2 will survive; its whether the Fifteenth Amendment still holds any power at all. The Constitutions promise of racial equality at the ballot box is clear, yet every mechanism designed to uphold that promise has been stripped away, redefined, or ignored by this Court.

Don't forget interacial marriage!

the beef with interracial marriage has always been weird to me considering how many conservatives are in interracial marriages themselves.

And as we all know, republicans certainly never vote against their own interest or think something won't apply to them.

What do you mean?

the beef with interracial marriage has always been weird to me considering how many conservatives are in interracial marriages themselves.

Like is there a possibility that somebody will contest interracial marriage and appeal to the SC? That would be something