Justice Clarence Thomas is finding increasingly creative ways to justify reshaping long-standing laws.
During a rare appearance at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the George H.W. Bush–appointed justice said the Supreme Court should take a more critical approach to settled precedent, arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,” ABC News reported.
Thomas, 77, compared his Supreme Court colleagues to passengers on a train, and said: ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.”
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.
What?
It’s better than saying, “I’ve been bribed a shit ton and no one is caring, so I’ll say and do whatever I want.”
An orangutan is driving the train and apparently you’re cool with that.
I think he called Trump an orangutan, let’s tell Daddy and get him fired .
It’s the old orangutan-train-engineer argument, which gained legal precedent in Plessy v. Ferguson, brought by passage of an 1887 Florida law, whereby states began to require that railroads furnish separate accommodations for each race.
“One of the good ones.”
If everything falls to pure fascism, I hope I at least get to see the leopards eat Clarence’s face.
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Is he admitting this is how he writes his opinions?
The bible is something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. God doesn’t write.
Even the actual gospel isn’t gospel to these demons.
Ironically I don’t disagree with him but for completely different reasons. It’s pretty obvious he wants to use this as an excuse to do whatever he’s paid to do by the biggest bribe.
But Jefferson pushed for vast changes and “revolution” (not the violent type which honestly feels pretty naive) every generation. Because why should the rules and ideals and commitment of the dead hold back the present and future.
I have always thought precedent, when it comes to interpreting laws, should have an expiration date. If congress doesn’t pass a law to support the precedent, then it is no longer valid after that date. For constitutional interpretations, once past the expiration, a lower court can’t use it as justification anymore.
That works great and all until somebody tries to block renewal of basic human rights. Put constitutional referendums on a schedule.
Here in Sweden two consecutive elected governments have to approve changes to the constitution. Seems like another useful tool to prevent abuse.
Lower court precedence, however, sure it would be nice with expiration dates so legislature has to authorize it explicitly to keep it. You could even have boards whose responsibility is to translate precedence from courts into law proposals to be voted on.
With the US 2 party system and first past the post voting system practically nothing would ever change then. Which does mean one crazy wannabe dictator can’t do as much damage. But also means getting progressive policies pushed through would also be impossible.
But I do like that idea in theory, once we solve our 2 party problem then something like that would make a lot of sense. I don’t know how we will ever solve that, figured for sure after January 6th and COVID that a real 3rd party would gain traction? And yet here we are.
Lmao orangutan is a particularly apt metaphor
isclarencethomasdeadyet
**Translation:**The law is whatever you pay me to make the law.
What a stupid metaphor. Settled law is called “precedent.” If there’s an orangutan driving the train it’s because YOU GUYS made that possible.
There is an orangutan driving the train. His name is Trump.
I wonder how much these public statements cost whoever paid him to make them.
These people are the real “Satanists”. They believe in a will to power and nothing else.
Hey hey, don’t lump the satanists in with these pieces of shit, they are actually generally pretty cool in my experience.
That’s why I used scare quotes, and not that “Satan worship” is even “real”, historically speaking, in so much as it represents the exaltation of material reality and the nihilistic pursuit of power for personal worldly gain, these “Christians” exemplify it far more than the self-described “Satanists”.
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis‚" Thomas said, referring to the legal principle of abiding by precedent. “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
…I have no idea. What the holy fuck did you just say? Was that English, Clarence?
Oh that’s easy, stare decisis for things we like and overturning everything we don’t like. Simple!
Corrupt! Fuck this dude. He single handedly has been a main factor of why the US has gone to shit.
Not just him don’t forget Roberts.
The right has always been hypocrites. Now they are so blatant they can’t even coherently argue their points. It’s just corruption. Pure and simple. The constitution and precedent only ever mattered when it was advantageous to them / their bribers.
