[Lurkinanloomin]

Obergefell and Roe need to be overturned.

[Zathras]

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

[gibsonguy]

“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.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

[HamiltonJay]

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

[Buckeye McFrog]

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

[1Old Pro]

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

[NewJerseyJoe]

P4L

[House Atreides]

Oh, if only the other “conservative” justices would have the same guts, integrity and love for the US Constitution that Justice Thomas clearly has, our Republic would not be in its current danger of falling.

[Albion Wilde]

I did a master's thesis on this topic; how the court makes a politically loaded decision, then lower courts cherrypick the language of the decision, taking a phrase out of context and yelling "stare decisis!" (remain decided) to craft a whole new set of "rights" not enumerated by the Constitution.

[9YearLurker]

Thomas could be my favorite Justice of all time. Trump is getting more GOPe judges and justices in, but they are uniparty types. Thomas is the real deal.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

The Supreme Court should definitely overturn Roe vs Wade based on the fact that it violated the 10th and 11th Amendments to the constitution. They are listed below.

10th AMENDMENT

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

11TH AMENDMENT

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Roe vs Wade distinctly violates both of these Amendments.

[Tenacious 1]

At one time our Supreme Court ruled that blacks weren’t people (Citizens). They were property. NOW, if there is any democrat that thinks precedence should be LAW (which is what they think they want), ask them if Dred Scott should still be the law of the land.

[zeugma]

I thought this footnote in Thomas' concurrence was interesting, especially the last sentence that I bolded below:

1 As the Court suggests, Congress is responsible for the proliferation of duplicative prosecutions for the same offenses by the States and the Federal Government. Ante, at 28. By legislating beyond its limited powers, Congress has taken from the People authority that they never gave. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8; The Federalist No. 22, p. 152 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (“all legitimate authority” derives from “the consent of the people” (capitalization omitted)). And the Court has been complicit by blessing this questionable expansion of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 57–74 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Indeed, it seems possible that much of Title 18, among other parts of the U. S. Code, is premised on the Court’s incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause and is thus an incursion into the States’ general criminal jurisdiction and an imposition on the People’s liberty.

[Antoninus]

Justice Thomas is a hero. God bless him.

[Still Thinking]

To me even allowing multiple jurisdictions to legislate on the same topic is legislative double jeopardy. If a given matter (murder, rape, mugging, etc) is properly a state matter, then there should be no federal laws on it. None. And if a given matter is appropriate for federal control, there should likewise be no state laws.

But, on correcting stare decisis, I'm with him 100%.