Posted on 09/30/2025 11:32:23 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as critical voice of reason on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, it wasn’t a surprise when he delivered a much-needed dose of reality about the high court’s constitutional role during a rare public appearance late last week.
Speaking at the Catholic University Law School, the current court’s longest-serving member reportedly discussed the Supreme Court’s overturning of longstanding precedents in several of its recent decisions. He specifically tackled the subject of stare decisis, arguing that the high court should not blindly follow past precedents without considering whether those decisions adhere to the Constitution.
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis,” Thomas said in reference to the legal doctrine of abiding by past decisions. “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
As described by Courthouse News, Thomas went on to characterize adherence to stare decisis as “a series of cars on a long train,” wherein new SCOTUS cases “become additional cars, following the train wherever it’s going.” The H.W. Bush appointee notably said, “We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train or where it is going, and you could go up there to the engine room and find out it’s an orangutan.”
Thomas’ most impactful remarks, however, centered on the Supreme Court’s obligation to the rule of law. While acknowledging the fallibility of judges, the justice noted that regardless of what precedent is established, that precedent must abide by America’s founding document and the country’s “legal tradition.”
“I don’t think that I have the gospel,” Thomas said, “that any of...
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Compare the unmatched intellect of Justice Thomas to the non-existent intellect of the one that cannot define a woman.
Thomas…” that the high court should not blindly follow past precedents without considering whether those decisions adhere to the Constitution.”
————-
He’s correct (not exactly a surprise). Too many judges and legal commentators get hung up on state decisis, as if it is the law by itself, let alone the Constitution. They are mesmerized by what prior judges or Justices ruled, showing that they’re little better than the orangutans that Thomas mentioned.
How I wish that we could clone him and put a hundred of him in various places throughout the federal court system.
Stare Decisis allows Judges and Justices to advance “progressive” doctrine by doing nothing.
Scalia said it best “ Stare decesis is for suckers!”
Scalia said it best “ Stare decesis is for suckers!”
The U.S. Supreme Court needs to keep an eye on the actions of the lower court judges actions if they intend to keep justice civil.
First time I’ve ever heard of this from a law perspective. Interesting and scary at the same time. I compare it to change management in my field of work.
Me: “Why do we do it this way?”
Employees: “Because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
Me: “Is this the correct way of doing it?”
Employees: “Seems to be working.”
Meanwhile, we’re throwing money down the drain on a process with no real return which costs the company oodles every year, and everyone seems happy to continue doing so. The orangutan running the train is a beautiful way to describe it!!!
Yup, SCOTUS needs to revisit sovereign immunity which is not in the Constitution.
Kavanaugh the squish is way too deferential to precedent. Intellectually lazy.
Jumanji Jackson? 😉😂😂
In many cases, an orangutan would be an improvement.
Justice Thomas is a treasure, and Joe Biden tried his damnedest to keep him off the SC and ruin his reputation .
Of all the reasons there are to despise Joe Biden, that is top on my list!
Justice Thomas is a treasure, and Joe Biden tried his damnedest to keep him off the SC and ruin his reputation .
Of all the reasons there are to despise Joe Biden, that is top on my list!
Progressives argue Stare Decisis only when they agree with the precedent.
Progressives argue Stare Decisis only when they agree with the precedent.
There was a time not all that long ago when the courts first looked to past decisions for guidance in making a ruling; and, then only looked at the Constitution if required to make a decision.
It had always been my opinion that the courts should look first to the words in the Constitution when deciding a case.
There was a time not all that long ago when the courts first looked to past decisions for guidance in making a ruling; and, then only looked at the Constitution if required to make a decision.
It had always been my opinion that the courts should look first to the words in the Constitution when deciding a case.
Progressivism would be extinct without Starry divisis.
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.