Think again
Clarence Thomas has some thoughts:
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.
Thomas was in the 5-4 minority that voted against the Obergefell decision.
Remember, Roberts voted with the minority in that case so he’ll be there with Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch. Can we count on Kavanaugh or Barrett on this one? I don’t think so. Kavanaugh is having tantrums about being disrespected and Barrett is a Catholic fanatic.
Do I think they’ll do it? I don’t know. But I see no reason to assume they won’t. They don’t care about precedent that have been upheld for 50 or a hundred years. Why would they care about a ten year old precedent they truly find offensive?
They see Dobbs as their guiding principle.
They overturned Roe, knowing that it would cause a massive reaction. I see no reason they wouldn’t be willing to do the same with Obergefell.