Current Events > Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming docket

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/28/clarance-thomas-precedence-supreme-court-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 already knew this with Roe v Wade, but since nothing can really stop them they can say the quiet part out loud.

Oh yeah that's cool

We know the illegitimate court has no concern for the law or constitution without them telling us.

Yeah, that's how it works. A lot of our landmark cases were shredding old precedent.

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

I can't say what I want to say without being modded.

hivebent4life posted...

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

Probably.

hivebent4life posted...

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

95% sure we're losing it. to appease the conservatives.

hivebent4life posted...

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

Don't forget interacial marriage!

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

VRX3000 posted...

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

Judicial reform isn't happening under Republican rule.

As always, Clarence Thomas opinion will be decided by bribes, and, of course, evil.

havean776 posted...

Don't forget interacial marriage!

But Thomas' marriage will be fine because reasons.

hivebent4life posted...

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

Not just those but interracial marriage, women's right to vote and hell maybe even even having a congress and senate anything to keep power

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

Thank God we stopped that horrible laughing tyrant Kamala though!

mybbqrules posted...

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

Thank God we stopped that horrible laughing tyrant Kamala though!

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.

hivebent4life posted...

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

Don't forget Loving

And Brown v Board.

This is totally in line with Textualists.

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

Frolex posted...

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

1st time in our history.

"Well of course precedent doesn't matter, I wasnt sucking off Donald Trump 30 years ago!"

hivebent4life posted...

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

Losing a lot more than that too. Wonder if they'll try going for women's right to vote at some point.

Tmaster148 posted...

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.

Yep. This is because Trump won in 2016 and through a combination of timing and Mitch McConnell's fuckery got three Supreme Court picks. I don't think a lot of people at the time realized just how consequential that election was.

hivebent4life posted...

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

And maybe interracial marriage

So constitution doesnt matter and well vote however we feel like it.

Destroying stare decisis to own the libs

Zikten posted...

And maybe interracial marriage

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

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

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

What do you mean?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Naw, Donnie just needs to sign an executive order and the courts will say that's supreme divine law.

I just say we all ignore whatever the Supreme Court says from now on, if precedent no longer matters, then why the fuck should we abide to Dobbs, Citizens United and so on? Fuck that.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Gay marriage is primarily because of the Obergefell ruling in 2008. Interracial marriage is through the Living ruling in 1954.

If the Supreme Court determines these to be invalid it's over. And since they have previously ruled that the Executive( aka Trump) is an all- knowing diety, it's pretty over. Congress has been rendered toothless by this court, which is how Trump can dismantle Departments like Education even though Congress (should) be the only one who can. Nothing they pass matters.

Hell, they are also going to rule on birthright citizenship even though it's protected under the 14th amendment.

Also that Respect for Marriage law has a flaw. It recognizes Marriage as valid in all states if legal in one state. But if a clerk ( like the PoS in Kentucky brining gay marriage back) wants to be an asshole they can deny a gay marriage and not be considered discrimination.

Example: a gay couple wants to get married in SC. The local clerk denies it for "religious reasons" so they'd have to get married in another state that allows it in order to be "legal"

Go drink a pube Coke, jerkoff

LightSnake posted...

Destroying stare decisis to own the libs

Stare decisis is supposed to be worthless at the Supreme Court level, because they are the only court in the system with the power, duty and obligation to reverse their prior fuckups (e.g., Brown overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, and Lawrence overturning Bowers).

That why it's such a bad thing to get partisan hacks onto the supreme court -- there is literally no check on what they can do, within the US legal system.

Tmaster148 posted...

Judicial reform isn't happening under Republican rule.

But it'd be nice if judicial regression didn't happen, either.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's cute you think this shit matters anymore

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Or they just ignore the law as they have over and over and over and over and over and over without consequence

Almost every billshit thing the Trump Admin has done is illegal#

You're just burying your head in the sand

I recall Clarence saying they were going to be looking at voting rights also.

Supreme Court Ready to Gut Last Vestige of Voting Rights Act - Alliance for Justice https://share.google/Ma4tpxFKI0fyWI9DR

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.

Yeah, Black and brown minorities nationwide (especially in red states) are about to get gerrymandered such that there will be no point in voting at all, effectively silenced and having no say over who represents them.

. 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.

What basis for legal judgement does he have that isn't founded on 'something somebody dreamt up'?

Laws, tradition, country . . . all things that were 'dreamt up'.

havean776 posted...

Don't forget interacial marriage!

Dont need to get a divorce if your marriage is made illegal!

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

621 posted...

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.

Heineken14 posted...

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

I mean yeah they do but then there's also the ones who absolutely know exactly what they're voting for and I'm like

I still dont think well lose interracial marriage, at least not soon. Maybe its the eventual plan, but doing it right now would be too much, too fast and I like to think that even Americans who would allow gay marriage to be overturned wouldnt stand for this one yet.

jefffan posted...

What do you mean?

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

621 posted...

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

Clarence is just trying to nullify his own marriage without a divorce so he doesn't have to give up half his shit.

So business as usual for these dipshits

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

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

Well I didn't think gay marriage would be eliminated but here we are.

Racists are panicking over the drop in white babies. That's where the whole "white replacement theory" comes from. Get it outlawed? Bam! More white babies!

That's how they think.