13h ago

Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket

www.theguardian.com Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket

The court is expected to weigh in on same-sex marriage next session, which it legalized in 2015

Settled legal precedent in the US is not “gospel” and in some instances may have been “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with”, the US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas has said.
Thomas – part of the conservative supermajority that has taken hold of the supreme court over Donald Trump’s two presidencies – delivered those comments Thursday at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law in Washington DC, ABC News and other outlets reported. His remarks preceded the nine-month term that the supreme court is scheduled to begin on 6 October.
“I don’t think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel,” Thomas said during the rare public appearance, invoking a term which in a religious context is often used to refer to the word of God. “And I do give perspective to the precedent. But … the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Among the various cases Thomas and his colleagues are expected to weigh in on is a request to overturn the 2015 Obergefell supreme court decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. Other cases being mulled by the supreme court for its 2025-2026 term involve tariffs, trans rights, campaign finance law, religious rights and capital punishment.

Pretty sure everyone had this on their bingo cards.

News @lemmy.world

Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket

www.theguardian.com /us-news/2025/sep/28/clarance-thomas-precedence-supreme-court-docket

247 40

19 comments

Among the various cases Thomas and his colleagues are expected to weigh in on is a request to overturn the 2015 Obergefell supreme court decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide.
I feel like this is one thing that might actually motivate a larger portion of the population to protest.
Because I cant imagine what else it would take.
- That's the great thing about a stacked court. They don't have constituents to listen to, and their solution to protests has of late been putting up a bigger fence around the building.
- I'm sure after same sex marriage gets torn down they'll go after interracial marriage next. They're slowly peeling back all the good layers of this country until we get back to the old rotten core of slavery and segregation underneath.
- Thankfully getting rid of same-sex marriage isn't as simple as reversing the precedent. They'd need to rule that same-sex marriage is somehow unconstitutional. Which I'm sure they'll try ofc.
  
  I'm sure the plan is to overturn precedent and have the ruling in such a way that it's up to the states

I hate this man
- he's about to do some serious fuck shit even by his standards
  
  Yup, this is his signaling to ease the coming blow.

Lmao, like how the supreme courts right to declare laws unconstitutional is just a precedent set by the Supreme Court.
Nothing in the constitution enumerates their ability to shoot down laws, it just says “a Supreme Court shall be established”
Maybe shut the fuck up about throwing out past precedent you don’t like, given that precedent is the only reason you get a say on the matter.

Precedent only when we feel like it

So nothing's changed?

Hey Americans, have you tried shooting the fascists?
- Most people aren't there yet. It takes a massive number of truly disaffected people to spark a real resistance. It also requires known leaders willing to head it up and organize, otherwise it's just disjointed actions that can't be capitalized on.
  This is why the whole "hey 2A people, where you at" thing is so annoying; the Revolutionary War had leaders and organization from the get-go, because well-known figures were willing to step up and say, "bring your weapons, organize here". And it was people with their personal arms at first, until they seized armories.
  Maybe we'll get there, hopefully not, but most people are still working their jobs and getting Starbucks and going to Target, and you don't just collectively go from that to shoosting directly. There's a lot of in-between.
  
  2a people aren’t who they think they are.
  Saying “hey 2a” is pointing out they are hypocrites. Finding “hey 2a” annoying is disliking when people point out hypocrisy.
  Personally, I am partial to people who pointed out hypocrisy.

19 comments