Dred Scott...three-fifths of a person.
He’s absolutely right.
Clarence Thomas, IMO, the best SCOTUS justice ever!!
We need eight more just like him on the high bench!!
The balance between stare decis and original interpretation is an interesting one, as it gets to the philosophy of a justice with respect to the passage of time. Do things change enough to warrant reversing a prior decision, and if so, what standard applies? “Demonstrably erroneous” is different than “Grievously wrong”, and his willingness to make pragmatic changes opened even Justice Scalia up to criticism:
“Faced with this problem, Justice Scalia famously described himself as a“faint-hearted originalist” who would abandon the historical meaning when following it was intolerable. He claimed that “stare decisis is not part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it.””
Those who are interested in understanding the issue rather than just parroting talking points will find the article below worth reading, especially because the author is Amy Conan Barrett, who will likely be the next nominee to sit on the US Supreme Court:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr
Wheeeee! Fireworks for the Fourth of July, Baby!
Thank you Judge Thomas for peeling back the layers of BS America has suffered from, thanks to the Socialist noses under our tent! :)
Even the Dems know that Roe was a bad decision.
Dred Scott...three-fifths of a person.
That would signifigantly weaken stare decisis. Which in many cases would be a good idea.
CC
Hopefully that will apply to firearms laws too.
So, according to those so afraid of his statement, Plessy v. Ferguson should still be the law, there should be no child labor laws or minimum wage laws, because that was well established precedent?
Same with Brown. Warren's utterly fatuous declaration that "separate is inherently unequal" not only defines the case, it goes unchallenged, despite the absence of any substantive argument in its favor.
There are others. THOSE are the precedents that need to be revisited.
Corrupt, post-17th Amendment career lawmakers get around 1st Amendment prohibitions on making politically correct, vote-winning laws that prohibit religious expression for example, by nominating activist Supreme Court justices and judges who do Congress’s dirty, unconstitutional legislative work for it by legislating laws prohibiting religious expression from the bench.
Patriots need to clean up the anti-religious expression federal and state government swamp by electing a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, but will also promise to do the following.
New patriot lawmakers not only need to get activist justices and judges off of the bench, but also exercise Congress's 14th Amendment power to make penal laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA!
So, bad habits do not make good law.
I agree with Justice Thomas. An erroneous decision from the dim past, such as Dred Scott, or Roe v Wade, should not become settled law because they “happened” some time ago.
It’s the number 1 right being violated of the Decloration of Independence. Life comes before liberty or happiness. SCOTUS sucks!
The sad thing is that a Supreme Court Justice stating the obvious makes big news.
I am hoping that Obergefell v. Hodges (homosexual marriage 2015) is implicated, too.
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.