Justice Clarence Thomas is finding increasingly creative ways to justify reshaping long-standing laws.
During a rare appearance at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the George H.W. Bush–appointed justice said the Supreme Court should take a more critical approach to settled precedent, arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,” ABC News reported.
Thomas, 77, compared his Supreme Court colleagues to passengers on a train, and said: ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.”
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.
What?
It’s better than saying, “I’ve been bribed a shit ton and no one is caring, so I’ll say and do whatever I want.”
An orangutan is driving the train and apparently you’re cool with that.
I think he called Trump an orangutan, let’s tell Daddy and get him fired .
It’s the old orangutan-train-engineer argument, which gained legal precedent in Plessy v. Ferguson, brought by passage of an 1887 Florida law, whereby states began to require that railroads furnish separate accommodations for each race.
“Left wing activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges! The left! The left wing activist judges!”
… fucking projection ass hypocrites. Always.
Legislating from the bench!!!
We can NEVER forget that this is what they do
arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,”
This is correct, but not in the sense that he provides. Society changes, what was okay before may not be okay now. Weighing precedent and modern society is a careful process. Tossing off precedent should have justification for why it’s being shrug and there needs to a preponderance that this is indeed the shift of society.
Walking in and saying, “well we should just outright critical” is absolutely not the way to do it. Overturning previous case law should happen, but that shouldn’t be the fucking default. And when you do overturn previous case law, you really need to bring a fuck ton of support, not, “meh we changed our mind.” Being a contrarian for sake of rocking the boat isn’t how our highest court should operate.
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Is he admitting this is how he writes his opinions?
Sure. Why should the third car on the train follow the cars ahead? Break free from the track, accept the bribe, jump the rails and chart your own course.
The bible is something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. God doesn’t write.
isclarencethomasdeadyet
Even the actual gospel isn’t gospel to these demons.
Lmao orangutan is a particularly apt metaphor
Ironically I don’t disagree with him but for completely different reasons. It’s pretty obvious he wants to use this as an excuse to do whatever he’s paid to do by the biggest bribe.
But Jefferson pushed for vast changes and “revolution” (not the violent type which honestly feels pretty naive) every generation. Because why should the rules and ideals and commitment of the dead hold back the present and future.
I have always thought precedent, when it comes to interpreting laws, should have an expiration date. If congress doesn’t pass a law to support the precedent, then it is no longer valid after that date. For constitutional interpretations, once past the expiration, a lower court can’t use it as justification anymore.
**Translation:**The law is whatever you pay me to make the law.
These people are the real “Satanists”. They believe in a will to power and nothing else.
Hey hey, don’t lump the satanists in with these pieces of shit, they are actually generally pretty cool in my experience.
That’s why I used scare quotes, and not that “Satan worship” is even “real”, historically speaking, in so much as it represents the exaltation of material reality and the nihilistic pursuit of power for personal worldly gain, these “Christians” exemplify it far more than the self-described “Satanists”.
What a stupid metaphor. Settled law is called “precedent.” If there’s an orangutan driving the train it’s because YOU GUYS made that possible.
There is an orangutan driving the train. His name is Trump.
I wonder how much these public statements cost whoever paid him to make them.
deleted by creator
