Clarence Thomas says legal precedents are not "the gospel"

Excluding miscegenation, of course!

Clarence, let's judge your ' Interracial ' marriage shall we??

Get Covid, Clarence.

And the Gospel isn't the gospel, either.

This corrupt bootlicker who has been taking bribes and trips for decades needs to be pissed on in life and in death.

Supreme Court has to be overhauled - it's a joke what it has become. Not that it was ever without problems - but it's disgusting what it is today.

No lifetime appointments for anything. Ever. THAT is a stupid precedent.

L U I G I, we need a favor! Thanks sweetie...

A broken clock is right twice a day. He is right. Otherwise, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be good law. And hopefully, the Heller decision, somehow finding a constitutional right to bear arms, will be overturned. And so many more.

I don't agree him ideologically and I think he is corrupt as hell but he is absolutely right. The SCOTUS of the last 5 years has made rulings that will need to be revisited, revised and/or struck down.

[quote]And hopefully, the Heller decision, somehow finding a constitutional right to bear arms, will be overturned.

Yeah, this court will get right on that.

First, though:

"The Court is poised to revisit a 90-year precedent that limits a president’s ability to remove members of some independent federal agencies without cause. The justices will also consider whether to overturn a landmark 1986 decision governing the use of race in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act. For the first time, the Court is also considering a petition for writ of certiorari asking them to explicitly revisit and overturn the 2015 decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which extended marriage rights to same-sex couples."

Somehow, I think the Loving decision is not one of the precedents Thomas wants to revisit.

Thomas is not fundie. He’s Catholic.

Just as bad but there is a difference.

Loving v Virginia should be overturned just for Clarence.

[quote] And hopefully, the Heller decision, somehow finding a constitutional right to bear arms, will be overturned.

[quote] Yeah, this court will get right on that.

Never suggested that THIS Court would ever overturn Heller. My point was only that not all SCOTUS decisions deserve to be preserved.

The only gospel this clown and his cunt wife understand is the gospel of $$$$$$$$.

I guess we need parties with standing to challenge Loving v. Virginia.

I'm not sure what the basis would be, but I think we should start shoveling shit back on MAGA lives and that will wake them up, because nothing is real unless it happens to them.

Desperate times. An eye for an eye...reciprocal justice measure for measure.

R15 - problem for Thomas is - MAGA would approve the repeal of Loving v. Virginia!

All of these tokens - blacks, Latinos, Asians, women, and Log Cabin Republican gays - that carry the water for Republican party think they will be saved and only the others will suffer. They still will never wake up when their own policies bite them in the ass.

Let's set up a SuperPac to raise money to overturn Loving.

He's not wrong in that they're "not gospel" but I'm sure he's off in his reasoning.

Established legal decisions get expanded, restricted, overridden by new legal decisions. But the reason is usually because a reconsideration of the decision made the court realize that, for example, it only applied to a narrower set of facts than previously thought (other situations can be distinguished so the precedent doesn't apply), or the court will realize that it didn't (or fully) previously consider other existing decisions that spoke to the issue. Just a few examples, but the nature of "the law" via court decisions isn't always easy to pinpoint. It's a constant cycle and precedent gets challenged a lot and does change.

That said, plenty of precedent is quite sturdy and does last. I'm betting, unsurprisingly, that his "not gospel" comment has nothing to do with the normal process of questioning precedent and making sure that the law is accurate, but is simply a precursor excuse to him wanting to reverse good decisions on the grounds that he doesn't like the result.

I mean, he wouldn't say the decisions he values and provide the result he wants are not "the gospel."

How can this guy be considered a jurist of any kind?

He does whatever his white overlords (and his white wife) tell him to do.

He’s revolting and his wife is the devil itself

[quote] Get Covid, Clarence.

His replacement under Trump isn't going to be any improvement. And at least 30 years younger.

When slavery is once again legal in this country, I want Clarence.

This man has been living with ptsd for most of his adult life including his conversion to conservatism. It’s sad.

It's not.

His wife is named Ginny and she’s ugly. And deplorable.