Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas urges Supreme Court to reverse 'demonstrably erroneous decisions'
The Hill ^ | 06/17/19 | Jacqueline Thomsen

Posted on 06/17/2019 9:52:35 AM PDT by yesthatjallen

Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday said that the Supreme Court should take more action to overturn prior “demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

In a concurring opinion issued in a double-jeopardy case, Thomas wrote that he believes the court was correct in not overturning a doctrine that allows an individual to be charged with the same crime by federal and state prosecutors.

However, he wrote that the Supreme Court should revisit its use of the “stare decisis” doctrine, under which a past precedent is not be overturned unless there’s a compelling reason to do so.

Thomas wrote that the use of the judicial standard “elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions — meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation — over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law.”

And he argued that the court was overstepping its bounds by enforcing the past rulings to help establish new law.

“By applying demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law’s text—as the court is particularly prone to do when expanding federal power or crafting new individual rights — the court exercises “force” and “will,” two attributes the people did not give it,” the justice wrote.

Thomas said that the court should reexamine the doctrine to ensure that the justices are only utilizing “mere judgement” by following “the correct, original meaning of the laws we are charged with applying.”

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,” Thomas wrote.

And he said that federal judges in lower courts should also not feel bound to comply with an incorrect precedent.

The issue of judicial precedent was raised earlier this year, when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned a 1979 ruling on states’ immunity from lawsuits.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the reversal of the past decision “can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.” That statement sparked concerns over whether court’s conservative majority would later overturn Roe v. Wade.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; abortion; banglist; billofrights; clarencethomas; constitution; infanticide; jacquelinethomsen; justicethomas; medicareforall; nra; obamacare; robertscourt; scotus; secondamendment; staredecisis; supremecourt; thehill; thehillary; theshill; thomas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

1 posted on 06/17/2019 9:52:35 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Obergefell and Roe need to be overturned.


2 posted on 06/17/2019 9:55:03 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Americans with Disability Act.
One of the worst laws ever written.


3 posted on 06/17/2019 9:55:28 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

“That statement sparked concerns over whether court’s conservative majority“

BS there is not a conservative majority. It’s 4 libs 3 conservatives and 2 left of center swing votes.


4 posted on 06/17/2019 10:00:22 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen
However, he wrote that the Supreme Court should revisit its use of the “stare decisis” doctrine, under which a past precedent is not be overturned unless there’s a compelling reason to do so.

Thomas wrote that the use of the judicial standard “elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions — meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation — over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law.”

If it was a "demonstrably erroneous decision" then that would provide the "compelling reason" to overturn that decision as long has a majority of his fellow justices agree.

5 posted on 06/17/2019 10:00:35 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Agreed, a bad/wrong decision is a bad/wrong decision shouldn’t need someones life in the balance to be undone.


6 posted on 06/17/2019 10:01:25 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Even baseball has gone to instant replay to get the calls right.


7 posted on 06/17/2019 10:01:57 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
Obergefell and Roe need to be overturned.

ASAP.

8 posted on 06/17/2019 10:02:03 AM PDT by libertylover (Democrats hated Lincoln too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yesthatjallen

Thomas is a gift to our Country. May he serve many more years in good health.


9 posted on 06/17/2019 10:02:22 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Kavanaugh worships stare decisis.
So does Roberts.


10 posted on 06/17/2019 10:03:39 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents_Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zathras

“Americans with Disability Act.
One of the worst laws ever written.”

What is wrong with that one? The access mandates it forces on stores?


11 posted on 06/17/2019 10:03:47 AM PDT by Beagle8U (It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

Brennan’s “footnote” re anchor babies needs to be reinterpreted and revised out of existence, and the cancellation of birthright citizenship be made retroactive.


12 posted on 06/17/2019 10:09:16 AM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in-never, never,never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Marbury v. Madison
The decision that set up Judicial Tyranny.


13 posted on 06/17/2019 10:10:16 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

P4L


14 posted on 06/17/2019 10:10:38 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy

Any highlights without reading the whole thing?


15 posted on 06/17/2019 10:14:45 AM PDT by Beagle8U (It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
What is wrong with that one? The access mandates it forces on stores?

The ADA forces employers, businesses, and places of public accommodation to suffer the expense and burdens of implementing the law, rather than funding the law with public tax dollars.

16 posted on 06/17/2019 10:15:08 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Zathras

> Americans with Disability Act. One of the worst laws ever written. <

You betcha. A gal I know opened up a restaurant near me. And I was happy to see it, as all we have close by are fast-food places. Well, her restaurant had no tables! You had to eat standing up.

I found that odd. So I asked her about it. It turns out that because of the ADA, she’s not allowed to put in tables unless she had an expensive ADA-compliant rest room. Which she didn’t have.

Is that weird, or what? Anyhow, who wants to eat standing up? She closed in about a year.

(By the way, old restaurants are evidently grandfathered in.)


17 posted on 06/17/2019 10:15:28 AM PDT by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

“Reasonable Accommodation” Who defines that? Great kaw for lawyers needing work.


18 posted on 06/17/2019 10:17:04 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DLfromthedesert

Law


19 posted on 06/17/2019 10:18:32 AM PDT by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Is that so?

Tell us why then Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts joined Thomas in the decision last month on FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT which reversed stare decis and caused the WaPo to cry “Supreme Court’s conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask ‘which cases the court will overrule next?”

Just more of your uninformed BS.


20 posted on 06/17/2019 10:24:07 AM PDT by bigbob (Trust Trump. Trust the Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson