Posted on 06/17/2019 9:52:35 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday said that the Supreme Court should take more action to overturn prior demonstrably erroneous decisions.
In a concurring opinion issued in a double-jeopardy case, Thomas wrote that he believes the court was correct in not overturning a doctrine that allows an individual to be charged with the same crime by federal and state prosecutors.
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 theres 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.
And he argued that the court was overstepping its bounds by enforcing the past rulings to help establish new law.
By applying demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant laws textas the court is particularly prone to do when expanding federal power or crafting new individual rights the court exercises force and will, two attributes the people did not give it, the justice wrote.
Thomas said that the court should reexamine the doctrine to ensure that the justices are only utilizing mere judgement by following the correct, original meaning of the laws we are charged with applying.
When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it, Thomas wrote.
And he said that federal judges in lower courts should also not feel bound to comply with an incorrect precedent.
The issue of judicial precedent was raised earlier this year, when the Supreme Courts conservative majority overturned a 1979 ruling on states immunity from lawsuits.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the reversal of the past decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next. That statement sparked concerns over whether courts conservative majority would later overturn Roe v. Wade.
Obergefell and Roe need to be overturned.
Americans with Disability Act.
One of the worst laws ever written.
That statement sparked concerns over whether courts conservative majority
BS there is not a conservative majority. Its 4 libs 3 conservatives and 2 left of center swing votes.
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.
Agreed, a bad/wrong decision is a bad/wrong decision shouldn’t need someones life in the balance to be undone.
Even baseball has gone to instant replay to get the calls right.
ASAP.
Thomas is a gift to our Country. May he serve many more years in good health.
Kavanaugh worships stare decisis.
So does Roberts.
“Americans with Disability Act.
One of the worst laws ever written.”
What is wrong with that one? The access mandates it forces on stores?
Brennan’s “footnote” re anchor babies needs to be reinterpreted and revised out of existence, and the cancellation of birthright citizenship be made retroactive.
Marbury v. Madison
The decision that set up Judicial Tyranny.
P4L
Any highlights without reading the whole thing?
The ADA forces employers, businesses, and places of public accommodation to suffer the expense and burdens of implementing the law, rather than funding the law with public tax dollars.
> Americans with Disability Act. One of the worst laws ever written. <
You betcha. A gal I know opened up a restaurant near me. And I was happy to see it, as all we have close by are fast-food places. Well, her restaurant had no tables! You had to eat standing up.
I found that odd. So I asked her about it. It turns out that because of the ADA, she’s not allowed to put in tables unless she had an expensive ADA-compliant rest room. Which she didn’t have.
Is that weird, or what? Anyhow, who wants to eat standing up? She closed in about a year.
(By the way, old restaurants are evidently grandfathered in.)
“Reasonable Accommodation” Who defines that? Great kaw for lawyers needing work.
Law
Is that so?
Tell us why then Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts joined Thomas in the decision last month on FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT which reversed stare decis and caused the WaPo to cry “Supreme Courts conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask which cases the court will overrule next?”
Just more of your uninformed BS.
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.