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.
On Roe V Wade... So we conservatives are clear, we need to have the argument right.
There is no “overturning” Roe V Wade. The case made a state law banning abortion “unconstitutional” on the grounds of “privacy”. Things not in the constitution; 1) Abortion 2) Privacy 3) health care 4) contraceptives. It was a bad ruling because the SCOTUS had no legitimate basis or grounds to rule. They should have thrown out the privacy issue and ruled, there being no federal statute, or specific language in the constitution, the states reserve the rights to their own laws.
In short, if the SCOTUS hears a case and broadly states that each state may govern itself in the matter of abortion, it would be the same as if Roe V Wade were rejected from a hearing in the SCOTUS. THAT is what dems fear.
The SCOTUS is not going to rule that abortion should be illegal or disallowed, EVER.
Let's see, would you rather owe a million dollars or would you rather belong to a million man group that owes a million dollars. I know decisions are sometimes hard but pick one anyway,
Justice Thomas is a hero. God bless him.
HERE, HERE!
HEAR, HEAR.....
But, on correcting stare decisis, I'm with him 100%.
Wickard, Kelo, Raich, so many more.
I often thought Sarah Palin could have answered that [admittedly ambush] question about SCOTUS rulings a lot better.
If you have to ask, you cannot understand.
Ever notice how the first 50 parking spaces at Lowes are vacant other than 2 or 3 vehicles? Truly disabled people don’t do a lot of home improvement, but government knows best, as always.
At Menards all the handicap parking is next to one front door, but you can ONLY exit the store after shopping at the other end of the store 1/4 mile away!
Wow! By the time you get to your car you might just BE handicapped!
I am handicapped and have to limp 1/4 mile to my car every time I go there.
Roberts is a liberal and Roe v. Wade is safe as long as Jesuit-educated Kavanaugh remains on the court.
“Obergefell and Roe need to be overturned.”
So does Wickard.
L
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.