Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket
The court is expected to weigh in next session on same-sex marriage, which it legalized in 2015
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 Trump’s two presidencies – delivered those comments Thursday at the Catholic University of America’s 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 don’t 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.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/28/clarance-thomas-precedence-supreme-court-docketOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
54 replies
Yeah..... Wonder if he's already got a carve out written up specifically for him when they overturn the civil rights act or interracial marriage?
Just a reminder that this fucker sexually harassed Anita Hill for years.
And subjected other colleagues and associates to his porn addiction at the very least.
It won't be precedent. It will be amount of RVs donated.
MOTOR COACH!
God, that story seems like a lifetime ago.
"precedent" was destroyed in 2022. The Supreme Court are just tools of the christian cult. They have destroyed American law.
American law is as stable as a house of cards when half the country would rather base the law on presumptions of what 18th century white supremacists might have preferred to the needs of Americans in the 21st century...
Precedent was destroyed long before then...
Yuppp
Don't forget:
A big reason Thomas is a SC judge is Biden ran a sham confirmation hearing for his "good buddies across the aisle"....
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/biden-anita-hill-women-senate-clarence-thomas-213864
When Biden bitched and moaned about how it wasnt like "the good ole days" is because back then he was at best a useful idiot, if not outright intentionally helping the far right religious extremists who now run the GOP.
Decades of neoliberalism is coming home to roost with trump. A real party never would have let them set all this shit up over the decades.
So wouldn't this mean that past SCOTUS decisions are irrelevant to new cases? So people could legitimately keep bringing near-identical cases to the SCOTUS level and have a legitimate expectation for them to be decided? That sounds obviously unwise even by current SCOTUS standards.
Mind you, Thomas probably wants to go by a rule of "precedent matters when I say it does", so consistency is irrelevant.
I think to a degree it's never mattered. If the composition of the Supreme Court has changed enough, then they just come up with their own ad-hoc justification to make new rulings over old cases. Before her death, I remember RBG was encouraging the public to bring new cases regarding older rulings.
A lot of words for "I don't like it"
"I'm getting paid to not like it"
I think the gratuity is just a bonus. I think these really are his deeply held personal beliefs.
Clarence Thomas is the kind of man who after spending 12 years a slave would go out and hunt runaway slaves for his own new land.
Why start respecting 200 years of norms in American law now?
There is an extremely long history of discussion about Clarence Thomas and stare decisis / precedent.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/14/clarence-thomas-when-someone-uses-stare-decisis-that-means-theyre-out-of-arguments/comment-page-1/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-precedent.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/justice-thomas-lays-out-an-originalists-perspective-on-stare-decisis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#Originalism
Just Clarence Thomas doing Clarence Thomas things.
I have completely lost all confidence in our government.
Ok, then when trump leaves and a democrat packs the court, then who gives a fuck? It’s not like the number of judges is gospel or anything. Or an age limit, again if we’re not going to follow the rules then who fucking cares
As much as I want it, I don't think the Democrats will ever be willing to pack the court. -and that makes me a little depressed.
The last time they had the chance, polling told them Americans wouldn't be happy so they left it alone.
It's neat how they pay attention to what Americans want when it's the politically easy thing to do.
When one must make the choice between established precedent or a luxury motorhome, obviously precedent isn't gospel for Clarence Thomas
Imagine Clarence rolling up into Gary, Indiana in this thing to see "The Real America":
Look at you assuming this rapist of Anita Hill had morals and ethics in the first place.
Ok so how do the citizens pull him out of that office?
There are ways to remove a supreme Court justice, however given the political landscape the only practical way he's leaving is through his death.
Wawawewa
Well, we've tried ballot box, soap box, and jury box. What's left?
Pine?
He’s too good for that, fucking plywood
Wicker basket then.
I was going to say cardboard but damn a pier one wicker coffin is probably the worst way to be buried.
NOT THE BEES
We can't, of course. SCotUS judges can only be removed by congressional impeachment, and we all know what a comically shit hope that is currently.
By the neck.
Not like precedent was a large reason for rulings from this court so far.
Fun fact, Clarence Thomas' reaction to Samuel L Jackson in Django Unchained was, "Sam's getting soft in his old age."
Euphemism for " expect some crazy illegal shit to happen"
So gay marriage is out, what else will they be hearing this session? It’s gonna get so much worse, I’m sure.
I remember the joke from after Roe got overturned being that Uncle Tom was gonna legislate his way back to interracial marriage being illegal so he could sneak his way out of his own marriage.
Joke?
Yeah we got a bunch of analysts telling us a few months ago, no they'll leave that one alone. lol sure they're gonna take Roe, but not Obergefell? They just have to have the balls to write the goddamn thing, putrid as it will be, and god knows he's got 'em.
Constitutional Law Professors right now
Precedent is important, but it's superseded by whether or not the plaintiff has taken Thomas on vacation recently.
Like the law matters to anyone in 2025
The precedent is the legal tradition you pompous buffoon (Thomas not OP)
The Krusty the Clown of justice.
Clarese Dumbass should've been canned years ago
I mean we already know that because that’s what they’ve been doing for several years now
No reason to care what the state thinks about your marriage. You can still get married without the states involvement. Just have a ceremony and stuff. The only downside is that trans women can't have children and be in a marriage as a business partnership, but trans women can't have kids anyways, so it doesn't matter. Outside of having children, legal marriage is not a good deal. It really only exists in its good form to protect the interests of women who may wish to have children in a relationship. If you really want to you can enter into a contract with someone to split your assets as one body for the duration of the partnership or marriage, so you can specialize without taking all the risk, and then just get married anyways while giving the middle finger to these bigots.