Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Non Pool Related
Reload this Page Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off
Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off
Old
  (#1)
Rybord
AzB Silver Member
Rybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,803
vCash: 1500
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wilmington, NC
   
Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off - 06-17-2019, 02:42 PM

Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off Roe v. Wade speculation

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cla...de-speculation

In a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case announced Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy call for his colleagues to overturn "demonstrably erroneous decisions" even if they have been upheld for decades -- prompting legal observers to say Thomas was laying the groundwork to overturn the seminal 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.

Thomas' blunt opinion came in a case concerning the so-called "double-jeopardy" doctrine, which generally prohibits an individual from being charged twice for the same crime. But both pro-life and pro-choice advocates quickly noted the implications of his reasoning for a slew of other future cases, including a potential revisiting of Roe.

"When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it," Thomas wrote, noting that lower federal courts should also disregard poor precedents. Thomas went on to add that precedent "may remain relevant when it is not demonstrably erroneous."

Kristen Clarke, the President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News that Thomas' comments were part of a larger attack on abortion rights.

"One can't ignore the timing of Justice Thomas's concurring opinion which comes at a moment when we are seeing a coordinated and relentless attack on Roe v. Wade across the country," Clarke said. "The laws that have been adopted in several states violate the Court's settled precedent in Roe. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas has made clear his willingness to reject precedents that he personally deems incorrect, a position that unnecessarily politicizes the Court.

"Justice Thomas's view is fundamentally at odds with the way in which the Supreme Court has generally operated," Clarke said. "It is a view that threatens to further undermine the integrity of the Court and weaken the stability of the institution."

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown Law professor and former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, warned that Thomas' reasoning could have far-reaching implications.

"Justice Thomas is essentially laying the intellectual groundwork for a massive revisiting of settled precedents," Katyal wrote. "This can prove to be very, very dangerous."

Thomas' argument began by noting that the role of federal courts is primarily to uphold the Constitution above all else -- and if that means overturning long-held precedents set by other federal courts, Thomas wrote, so be it.

"The Constitution tasks the political branches—not the Judiciary—with systematically developing the laws that govern our society," Thomas wrote. "The Court’s role, by contrast, is to exercise the 'Judicial Power,' faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the laws enacted by those branches."

"When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it."

— Justice Clarence Thomas
English common law, Thomas said, relied on a precedent-focused principle called "stare decisis," meaning "let the decision stand." But unlike English common law, Thomas asserted, "we operate in a system of written law in which courts need not—and generally cannot—articulate the law in the first instance."

Thomas went on to address several counter-arguments, including the idea that precedent allows for more consistent legal determinations, and more certainty for litigants. He cited, for example, arguments to that effect by Justice Stephen Breyer in previous cases.

"As I see it, we would eliminate a significant amount of uncertainty and provide the very stability sought if we replaced our malleable balancing test with a clear, principled rule grounded in the meaning of the text," Thomas countered. "The true irony of our modern stare decisis doctrine lies in the fact that proponents of stare decisis tend to invoke it most fervently when the precedent at issue is least defensible."

Thomas concluded: "In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent. ... A demonstrably incorrect judicial decision ... is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power."

Throughout the day, analysts noted that Thomas' reasoning could potentially affect more than the abortion debate.

Wrote Slate legal analyst Mark Stern: "[Thomas'] repudiation of stare decisis isn’t really about Gamble. It’s aimed at a clear set of precedents—those enshrining a constitutional right to abortion access and same-sex marriage."

Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin, in an interview with Reuters, remarked, “Everyone is concerned about this because they’re thinking about Roe v. Wade.”

Thomas, in the Gamble case, ended up joining the court's 7-2 majority in ruling that individuals can be prosecuted by both the state and the federal government for the same crime, without violating the constitution's double jeopardy rules.

The idea, backed by generations of precedent, is that the states and federal government are separate sovereign entities, and that a crime against one is distinct from a crime against the other. That precedent, Thomas ruled, was not demonstrably erroneous, and therefore the majority was justified in following it.

Only the unusual pairing of Neil Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying that argument was essentially a loophole to circumvent the Constitution's prohibition against double jeopardy.

"A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it's happy with the result," Gorsuch wrote.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito was more deferential to precedent, saying "special justification" is needed to overturn precedent, even where the Constitution would serve as a lodestar.

Nevertheless, Alito noted that "the strength of the case for adhering to [previous] decisions grows in proportion to their ‘antiquity,'" meaning that newer precedents are less secure than older ones.

Monday's opinion was Thomas' second in as many months to hearten pro-life advocates. In May, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in a separate case that the Supreme Court would soon have to address the constitutionality of pro-life abortion laws head-on.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote in that case, upheld an Indiana law requiring the cremation or burial of fetal remains -- but they declined to take up the constitutionality of a law that would have barred abortion based on disability, sex, or race.

Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation," Thomas wrote, "the court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana's," Thomas wrote. "From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics."
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
LAMas
AzB Silver Member
LAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond reputeLAMas has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 32,485
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
   
06-17-2019, 05:06 PM

Is it a start?


dumluk
  
Reply With Quote
Seems reasonable to me!
Old
  (#3)
ShootingArts
Smorg is giving the 7!
ShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond reputeShootingArts has a reputation beyond repute
 
ShootingArts's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,105
vCash: 2900
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South of the Border
   
Seems reasonable to me! - 06-17-2019, 05:22 PM

It seems that precedent often is BS to begin with, flying in the face of the Constitution. I am all for throwing out bad precedent rather than enshrining it.

Hu
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 41,862
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-17-2019, 09:33 PM

Of course the SCOTUS should reverse prior bad rulings, even though they are precedents and therefore have stare decisis weighing towards keeping them.

They should, and they have done so. Otherwise the Dredd Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson (which propounded the 'separate but equal' standard allowing legal segregation) would still be standing as binding precedents on all the lower federal courts. They are not. They were overturned.

It is obvious he has Roe within his intended sights. But here he gives away more of the planned agenda. Let Justice Thomas words serve as the warning of what he foreshadows.

"From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics."

Roe was based on the alleged newly discovered right of privacy in the Griswold case, and followed from its reasoning. What was the Griswold case about? Whether a state could forbid contraception to married couples by law. They (meaning the Catholic axis in the court) are coming not just for Roe but Griswold. That is, not just abortion rights but the right to contraception.

They say there is no such privacy right in the COTUS or the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. It is true there is no such enumerated right to be found there. However, the 9th amendment opens the door, when it says:

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That is, the rights protected in the direct text are not the complete list.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Last edited by Sofla; 06-17-2019 at 09:36 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
Alan
AzB Silver Member
Alan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,825
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2005
   
06-18-2019, 02:36 AM

Legal scholars have wrestled with the meaning of the 9th Amendment for 200+ years. Judge Bjork called it an inkblot with it's meaning hidden. I seriously doubt 2019 will reveal its true meaning.

The Dredd Scott decision was NOT overturned by the Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment did that. It was Congress doing their job to overturn a bad decision. They could do the same in this case. The single best way to create a right of the people is to enact an Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps that should be the route rather than relying on a complicated Supreme Court decision. Take the argument to the people and let them decide through their elected representatives.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
Of course the SCOTUS should reverse prior bad rulings, even though they are precedents and therefore have stare decisis weighing towards keeping them.

They should, and they have done so. Otherwise the Dredd Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson (which propounded the 'separate but equal' standard allowing legal segregation) would still be standing as binding precedents on all the lower federal courts. They are not. They were overturned.

It is obvious he has Roe within his intended sights. But here he gives away more of the planned agenda. Let Justice Thomas words serve as the warning of what he foreshadows.

"From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics."

Roe was based on the alleged newly discovered right of privacy in the Griswold case, and followed from its reasoning. What was the Griswold case about? Whether a state could forbid contraception to married couples by law. They (meaning the Catholic axis in the court) are coming not just for Roe but Griswold. That is, not just abortion rights but the right to contraception.

They say there is no such privacy right in the COTUS or the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments. It is true there is no such enumerated right to be found there. However, the 9th amendment opens the door, when it says:

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That is, the rights protected in the direct text are not the complete list.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Chopdoc
AzB Silver Member
Chopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond reputeChopdoc has a reputation beyond repute
 
Chopdoc's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 22,331
vCash: 500
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Palm Coast, Fl
   
06-18-2019, 04:32 AM

Quote:
prompting legal observers to say
LOL!



Legal observers? Legal observers!



.


Bury me with my JOSS....


"Chop Lock"
Member of the world famous Lock Society

Cases I made: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=258632
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Sev
I taut I saw a pussy cat!
Sev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond reputeSev has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sev's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 99,519
vCash: 500
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: State of Franklin
   
06-18-2019, 05:08 AM

So.
The ruling on the Commerce Clause could be revisited and overturned.


Keep your head down and admire the shot.


COVFEFE!!



“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”---Martin Luther King, Jr.

I'm just a flea along for the ride... ---366Robin

Revelations of truth undermine a foundation of belief built on lies.---Sev

If our answers scare you, maybe you should stop asking frightening questions.---ChicagoRJ
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 41,862
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
   
06-18-2019, 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Legal scholars have wrestled with the meaning of the 9th Amendment for 200+ years. Judge Bjork called it an inkblot with it's meaning hidden. I seriously doubt 2019 will reveal its true meaning.

The Dredd Scott decision was NOT overturned by the Supreme Court. The 14th Amendment did that. It was Congress doing their job to overturn a bad decision. They could do the same in this case. The single best way to create a right of the people is to enact an Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps that should be the route rather than relying on a complicated Supreme Court decision. Take the argument to the people and let them decide through their elected representatives.
Thanks for the correction on what I said about the Dredd Scott decision. I'll return the favor to mention you probably meant Bork-- Robert Bork, not Bjork-- and further correct myself that it is Dred, not Dredd. (Housekeeping done.) Bork did not exactly call the 9th amendment an inkblot.

Quote:
When the Committee asked Judge Bork about the Ninth
Amendment, he replied:

I do not think you can use the Ninth Amendment unless you know something of what it means. For example, if you had an amendment that says "Congress shall make no" and then there is an inkblot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the inkblot if you cannot read it.14

Notice that Judge Bork did not equate the Ninth Amendment with an inkblot. He equated a judge confronting an ambiguous text with an ambiguous history with a judge confronting an inkblot.
In declaring there was no discernible meaning to the Ninth Amendment, he was not alone. As late as 1988, "John Hart Ely suggested that the ninth amendment remained a joke in sophisticated legal circles...."

As this linked article explains, that situation turned around about 20 years ago.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Last edited by Sofla; 06-18-2019 at 11:21 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Casual Observer
Viva... yeah whatever
Casual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond reputeCasual Observer has a reputation beyond repute
 
Casual Observer's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 21,072
vCash: 4100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2006
   
06-18-2019, 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopdoc View Post
LOL!



Legal observers? Legal observers!



.
He's my 2nd cousin...


"...And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw..."

Neil Peart

“...I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine...”
Atlas Shrugged
  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.