Posted on 06/18/2019 8:18:09 AM PDT by Twotone
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 Gamble v. United States, 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
About time someone spoke some sense on this issue
All kinds of judicial decisions are “erroneously decided” in the fevered brains of lawyers.
Good! Get rid of the 1934 National Firearms Act!
No more legislating from the bench.
It’s the function of the legislature to pass laws and precedent is not codified law. As such, Roe V. Wade has been ‘wrongful law’ since it became ‘precedent’.
A judge is just a lawyer with too much power.
Same reasoning used in Brown v. Board of Education to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. It only took them 60 years. Look for Roe v. Wade to be significantly modified around 10 years from now.
How about getting rid of birthright citizenship for illegals or any other anchor a non-citizen drops on american taxpayers. It’s based on a political interpretation of the 14th amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
“No more legislating from the bench.”
This is one of the main reasons the liberals and their deep state hate President Trump.
They know that via a second term, he will have at least two if not 3 new Supremes and hundreds of new conservative justices at the circuit levels.
Then, the bs of a few justices at the Supreme and the circuit making laws at that level will be over for decades.
Amy Coney Barret wrote an excellent article on this topic in 2017:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr
We just need 6 more of Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
The 1986 case which held that there was no Constitutional right to sodomy, was obliterated in 06 by Lawrence vs. Texas.
Would be awesome to substitute Amy Coney Barret for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Brown comes to mind
Jim Crow.
Etc
I don't think that's exactly true. That would be done via Constitutional Amendment. The Roe ruling merely set a precedent suggesting that similar cases should be viewed and adjudicated within the parameters of that ruling. Hence it is merely a juridical quasi-right to abortion. It seems like law was involved; but it wasn't
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.