Author Topic: Justice Thomas asks Supreme Court to overturn ‘demonstrably erroneous decisions’  (Read 4599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,863
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Justice Thomas asks Supreme Court to overturn ‘demonstrably erroneous decisions’
June 17, 2019 | Frieda Powers

Justice Clarence Thomas believes it’s time the Supreme Court moves to overturn “demonstrably erroneous” decisions made in the past.

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in a double-jeopardy case decided Monday, according to The Hill.

The “dual sovereignty doctrine,” which pertains to a person facing both state and federal charges for the same offense, was at issue in the decision by the court which ruled not to overturn the ruling in the case of an Alabama man in Gamble v. United States.

The use of the “stare decisis” doctrine, according to Thomas, should be revisited by the high court, saying it “elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions — meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation — over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law.”

more
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/06/17/justice-thomas-asks-supreme-court-to-overturn-demonstrably-erroneous-decisions-766094
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,284
Precedent, Meet Clarence Thomas. You May Not Get Along.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-precedent.html

Quote
Justice Clarence Thomas was busy in February. As usual, he asked no questions during Supreme Court arguments. But he made up for his silence with three opinions in eight days that took issue with some of the court’s most prominent precedents.

The opinions underscored two distinctive aspects of Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence. He tries to unearth the original meaning of the Constitution, and he has no use for precedents that have veered from that original understanding.

At the Federalist Society’s annual dinner in 2013, he was asked about the doctrine of stare decisis, which is legal shorthand for respect for precedent and Latin for “to stand by things decided.”

“Stare decisis doesn’t hold much force for you?” Judge Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit asked him during a public conversation at the dinner.

“Oh, it sure does,” Justice Thomas responded. “But not enough to keep me from going to the Constitution.”

According to data gathered by Stephen L. Wasby, an emeritus professor of political science at the University at Albany, Justice Thomas has written more than 250 concurring or dissenting opinions seriously questioning precedents, calling for their reconsideration or suggesting that they be overruled.

Almost one-third of the opinions concerned the rights of criminal defendants, Professor Wasby found, while others called for a fresh look at decisions on issues such as free speech, religion, voting, the separation of powers and federalism.

In a 2007 essay, Tom Goldstein, a prominent Supreme Court litigator and a co-founder of Scotusblog, wrote that “Justice Thomas’s extreme view of stare decisis has three features that distinguish him from the rest of the court.”

The first is “unflinching” honesty: “If he thinks the old cases should be discarded, he says so.”

The second is intellectual ambition: “He is thinking big and tackling the serious questions in constitutional law to which the court has not given a fresh look in decades.”

The third is his attitude toward precedent in constitutional cases: “He does not give stare decisis any weight.”

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to uphold other Judges.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Polly Ticks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,874
  • Gender: Female
I really like Justice Thomas.
Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good, too. -Yogi Berra

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to uphold other Judges.

On that he may differ with the head justice. Roberts seems to bristle at the suggestion that some judges are shirking their constitutional duties in favor of political partisanship. Which many obviously are.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to uphold other Judges.

That rather naively misstates the issues involved.

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
I really like Justice Thomas.

 :thumbsup:

Justice Thomas. One of the best Justices ever.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
I really like Justice Thomas.

This country would be well served with a couple more justices on the bench just like him.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
I really like Justice Thomas.
Me, too. He 'gets it'. He has been an asset to this Nation, and we could use eight more like him.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
That rather naively misstates the issues involved.
How? If the Constitution is not the first place the court turns in making a decision, how is that right? Why even have a court to decide Constitutionality if their focus is only on the meandering from the Constitution by other judges. We can get that (rather handily) at the District level.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
How? If the Constitution is not the first place the court turns in making a decision, how is that right? Why even have a court to decide Constitutionality if their focus is only on the meandering from the Constitution by other judges. We can get that (rather handily) at the District level.



Because the Constitution is not a clear, unambiguous codex the application of which requires no judgment.  If it were, then stare decisis would be beside the point because it would be obvious how it applied in every single case. 

But that is not the Constitution we have.  The one we have, like almost every law we have, contains ambiguities and must be applied in circumstances the authors could not have imagined.  Doing that requires judgment, and it is the role of stare decisis to give respect to prior exercises of judgment so that the Constitution does not become a football and application of the law a matter of the personal whims of the judge who happens to apply it. 

Respecting judgment calls made by earlier judges in ambiguous or ambivalent cases, even if one might personally exercise one’s judgment in a different way, subserves very important interests that lie at the root of any common law system that has a claim to being the rule of law, not merely one of personality.

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to uphold other Judges.

 :amen:  That is absolutely correct!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Bill Cipher

  • Guest


If that were true in the way you seem to think it’s true; there would be no need for the Supreme Court, and Justice Scalia would have found some other line of work. 

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
If that were true in the way you seem to think it’s true; there would be no need for the Supreme Court, and Justice Scalia would have found some other line of work.

It is exactly true and if you were to read some actual original source history you would find that the founders envisioned the Court to be a VERY boring place to work.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Because the Constitution is not a clear, unambiguous codex the application of which requires no judgment.  If it were, then stare decisis would be beside the point because it would be obvious how it applied in every single case. 

But that is not the Constitution we have.  The one we have, like almost every law we have, contains ambiguities and must be applied in circumstances the authors could not have imagined.  Doing that requires judgment, and it is the role of stare decisis to give respect to prior exercises of judgment so that the Constitution does not become a football and application of the law a matter of the personal whims of the judge who happens to apply it. 

Respecting judgment calls made by earlier judges in ambiguous or ambivalent cases, even if one might personally exercise one’s judgment in a different way, subserves very important interests that lie at the root of any common law system that has a claim to being the rule of law, not merely one of personality.
Considering that most "ambiguities" are the result of semantic distortions produced by attorneys, when most of the Constitution is actually pretty clear to people who do not engage in such RCH splitting and twisting to push their agenda (or that of their clients),it isn't hard to see how we have ended up with the mess we have.

There are, however, logical distortions which exist, even within the semantically distorted framework of the Courts.

In Miller, the judges allowed the lower court ruling that Miller was guilty of a violation of the NFA to stand, despite their interpretation of the 2nd being that it preserved only the right to keep and bear weapons useful in a military context.

Short barreled shotguns had been in use as trench weapons by the US military in the First World War, and, by that train of logic, should have been included in those weapons left uninfringed, along with any weapon used as a weapon of war.

The lack of knowledge by the justices that shotguns were, in fact, a useful militia weapon (still deployed today, were in Vietnam, and in conflicts prior), led to a ruling that would be erroneous in even that limited context.

A broader interpretation of the RKBA (the correct one) would have simply thrown the NFA out as an unconstitutional infringement, and successive legislation limiting the Rights of the People would have fallen to the gavel as well, if even considered by Congress.

Reading the writings of the Founders on the Standing Army, the role of citizens in keeping that Army "well regulated", would indicate that that Right of the People should be broadly interpreted, only limited through restrictions placed on those who have committed a serious crime (through due process of having been found guilty of that crime).
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 06:09:07 am by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Considering that most "ambiguities" are the result of semantic distortions produced by attorneys, when most of the Constitution is actually pretty clear to people who do not engage in such RCH splitting and twisting to push their agenda (or that of their clients),it isn't hard to see how we have ended up with the mess we have.

There are, however, logical distortions which exist, even within the semantically distorted framework of the Courts.

In Miller, the judges allowed the lower court ruling that Miller was guilty of a violation of the NFA to stand, despite their interpretation of the 2nd being that it preserved only the right to keep and bear weapons useful in a military context.

Short barreled shotguns had been in use as trench weapons by the US military in the First World War, and, by that train of logic, should have been included in those weapons left uninfringed, along with any weapon used as a weapon of war.

The lack of knowledge by the justices that shotguns were, in fact, a useful militia weapon (still deployed today, were in Vietnam, and in conflicts prior), led to a ruling that would be erroneous in even that limited context.

A broader interpretation of the RKBA (the correct one) would have simply thrown the NFA out as an unconstitutional infringement, and successive legislation limiting the Rights of the People would have fallen to the gavel as well, if even considered by Congress.

Reading the writings of the Founders on the Standing Army, the role of citizens in keeping that Army "well regulated", would indicate that that Right of the People should be broadly interpreted, only limited through restrictions placed on those who have committed a serious crime (through due process of having been found guilty of that crime).

Nonsense.  “Due process” is a term that is fraught with ambiguity and judgment must be used every time to determine what process is due in any given circumstance.  It is not susceptible to a mechanical application in even most instances.  And it is precisely with concepts such as due process that stare decisis is so important. 

“Infringed” is also another word that requires judgment and interpretation.  It cannot mean that no law can have even a minor impact on the ability of any individual to keep weapons because if it did, that would necessarily make it unconstitutional for a state to prohibit convicted violent felons from owning machine guns or grenade launchers. 

Therefore, it necessarily follows that the government can constitutionally enact laws that may adversely affect an individual’s ability to own whatever weapons he pleases. 

And so, even the term “ shall not be infringed” is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to be susceptible to mechanical application. 
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 01:01:20 pm by Bill Cipher »

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
If that were true in the way you seem to think it’s true; there would be no need for the Supreme Court, and Justice Scalia would have found some other line of work.

Except for the fact the Constitution...as Justice Scalia correctly saw it...included a judicial branch as part of the Government. 


When the judicial branch was created they were designed to be the weakest branch. 

It seems he understands the Constitution and it's role in Government far far better than you do or ever will.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39


And so, even the term “ shall not be infringed” is not sufficiently clear and unambiguous so as to be susceptible to mechanical application.

Only to a gun grabbing Liberal is it not sufficiently clear.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Except for the fact the Constitution...as Justice Scalia correctly saw it...included a judicial branch as part of the Government. 


When the judicial branch was created they were designed to be the weakest branch. 

It seems he understands the Constitution and it's role in Government far far better than you do or ever will.


By weakest the Founders meant that the court commanded neither the purse nor the military, and could succeed through persuasion and argument. 

But it most emphatically was not intended to be subservient to either of the two other branches, which is why it was called a co-equal branch of the government. 

You are perhaps the singularly most uninformed person on this forum when it comes to the Constitution.  And you top that all off with the most pretentious manner of displaying your ignorance. 

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Except for the fact the Constitution...as Justice Scalia correctly saw it...included a judicial branch as part of the Government. 


When the judicial branch was created they were designed to be the weakest branch. 

It seems he understands the Constitution and it's role in Government far far better than you do or ever will.


By weakest the Founders meant that the court commanded neither the purse nor the military, and could succeed through persuasion and argument. 

But it most emphatically was not intended to be subservient to either of the two other branches, which is why it was called a co-equal branch of the government. 

You are perhaps the singularly most uninformed person on this forum when it comes to the Constitution.  And you top that all off with the most pretentious manner of displaying your ignorance. 

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
By weakest the Founders meant that the court commanded neither the purse nor the military, and could succeed through persuasion and argument. 

But it most emphatically was not intended to be subservient to either of the two other branches, which is why it was called a co-equal branch of the government.

 
You are perhaps the singularly most uninformed person on this forum when it comes to the Constitution.  And you top that all off with the most pretentious manner of displaying your ignorance.

You need to read Article III.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 01:18:54 pm by txradioguy »
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Only to a gun grabbing Liberal is it not sufficiently clear.

So you would agree, then, that the Constitution prohibits the government from passing a law that makes it illegal for a convicted violent felon to own a machine gun, or a grenade launcher.  Got it. 

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
You need to read Article III.

Actually, you do.  And more to the point, you need to start trying to understand it.  Something you most clearly do not.