 |
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as critical voice of reason on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, it wasn’t a surprise when he delivered a much-needed dose of reality about the high court’s constitutional role during a rare public appearance late last week.
Speaking at the Catholic University Law School, the current court’s longest-serving member reportedly discussed the Supreme Court’s overturning of longstanding precedents in several of its recent decisions. He specifically tackled the subject of stare decisis, arguing that the high court should not blindly follow past precedents without considering whether those decisions adhere to the Constitution.
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis,” Thomas said in reference to the legal doctrine of abiding by past decisions. “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
As described by Courthouse News, Thomas went on to characterize adherence to stare decisis as “a series of cars on a long train,” wherein new SCOTUS cases “become additional cars, following the train wherever it’s going.” The H.W. Bush appointee notably said, “We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train or where it is going, and you could go up there to the engine room and find out it’s an orangutan.”
Thomas’ most impactful remarks, however, centered on the Supreme Court’s obligation to the rule of law. While acknowledging the fallibility of judges, the justice noted that regardless of what precedent is established, that precedent must abide by America’s founding document and the country’s “legal tradition.”
“I don’t think that I have the gospel,” Thomas said, “that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, and I do give perspective to the precedent. But it should — 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.” --->READ MORE HERE
As the Supreme Court is about to revisit some major decisions, one of the nine justices – and the longest-serving member of the conservative majority – has offered his view that there’s nothing sacred about precedent.
"At some point we need to think about what we're doing with stare decisis,” Justice Clarence Thomas said about the legal term that protects stability in the law. "And it's not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say 'stare decisis' and not think, turn off the brain.”
Thomas offered that view in a rare public appearance at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law on Sept. 25.
He was asked about the factors he considers when deciding whether a past decision was wrong and did not address any pending cases.
In the term that begins next month, the court will revisit a nearly century-old ruling protecting the heads of independent agencies that President Donald Trump has repeatedly challenged as he’s sought greater control over the government.
The high court has been chipping away at its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of preventing members of the Federal Trade Commission from being fired without cause.
When the majority said Trump could fire for now the last Democratic member of the FTC, Justice Elean Kagan wrote in her dissent that her colleagues are “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.
That’s not the only precedent the court could upend. --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment