Dred Scott...three-fifths of a person.
Posted on 06/17/2019 3:14:59 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
He’s absolutely right.
Clarence Thomas, IMO, the best SCOTUS justice ever!!
We need eight more just like him on the high bench!!
The balance between stare decis and original interpretation is an interesting one, as it gets to the philosophy of a justice with respect to the passage of time. Do things change enough to warrant reversing a prior decision, and if so, what standard applies? “Demonstrably erroneous” is different than “Grievously wrong”, and his willingness to make pragmatic changes opened even Justice Scalia up to criticism:
“Faced with this problem, Justice Scalia famously described himself as a“faint-hearted originalist” who would abandon the historical meaning when following it was intolerable. He claimed that “stare decisis is not part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it.””
Those who are interested in understanding the issue rather than just parroting talking points will find the article below worth reading, especially because the author is Amy Conan Barrett, who will likely be the next nominee to sit on the US Supreme Court:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr
Wheeeee! Fireworks for the Fourth of July, Baby!
Thank you Judge Thomas for peeling back the layers of BS America has suffered from, thanks to the Socialist noses under our tent! :)
All kinds of decisions can be “demonstrably erroneous” in the fevered minds of lawyers.
True.
Think of the fate of so many babies whose lives hang in the balance over some legal wordage and a vote by the SCOTUS.
Even the Dems know that Roe was a bad decision.
Dred Scott...three-fifths of a person.
That would signifigantly weaken stare decisis. Which in many cases would be a good idea.
CC
“Wheeeee! Fireworks for the Fourth of July, Baby!”
I would like to celebrate a memorial service to Ruth.
Hopefully that will apply to firearms laws too.
So, according to those so afraid of his statement, Plessy v. Ferguson should still be the law, there should be no child labor laws or minimum wage laws, because that was well established precedent?
Same with Brown. Warren's utterly fatuous declaration that "separate is inherently unequal" not only defines the case, it goes unchallenged, despite the absence of any substantive argument in its favor.
There are others. THOSE are the precedents that need to be revisited.
Corrupt, post-17th Amendment career lawmakers get around 1st Amendment prohibitions on making politically correct, vote-winning laws that prohibit religious expression for example, by nominating activist Supreme Court justices and judges who do Congress’s dirty, unconstitutional legislative work for it by legislating laws prohibiting religious expression from the bench.
Patriots need to clean up the anti-religious expression federal and state government swamp by electing a new patriot Congress in 2020 elections that will not only support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, but will also promise to do the following.
New patriot lawmakers not only need to get activist justices and judges off of the bench, but also exercise Congress's 14th Amendment power to make penal laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
From the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA!
Thanks for the link. I have DL’d and read a few pages. Very interesting actually, I expected it to be too heavy for me.
I will read the rest when I am not having my before dinner adult beverages.
It wasn't until Roosevelt stacked the Court with his "Progressive" fellow travelers that child labor and minimum wage precedents were revisited, and generally overruled by drastic extension of the Commerce Clause. That's not exactly what I'd call progress.
So, bad habits do not make good law.
That right there, my FRiend, is grounds for overturning Roe.
Dred Scott was overturned.
So why are we still quibbling over when a fetus “becomes” 100% human, now that we have the science of DNA ?
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.