Justice Thomas confirms “precedent” is not the gospel __ should be critically evaluated.

[johnwk]

See: Clarence Thomas breaks with precedent

“He clarified, “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.”

Thomas has notably dissented from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, reflecting his broader skepticism of certain substantive due process rulings”.

For those interested in why the Majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is at odds with our Constitution and its understanding by those who framed and helped to ratify it, and is a glaring erroneous “precedent”, see Justice Thomas’s DISSENTING OPINION with whom Justice Scalia joins.

By contrast, Justice Kennedy in authoring the majority opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution being violated, as found in the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and is falsely alleged to have been violated by a number of States not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

See: MAJORITY OPINION Obergefell v. Hodges

The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores the Tenth Amendment’s powers reserved to the States and likewise ignores the fact that under our Constitution, Article V is the only lawful way to require the States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

.
JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Samofvt]

Agree. This was a dangerous decision, and seems to allow one state to be able to make laws for all other states. precedent would compound the problem and nullify the Tenth Amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When you said: "Justice Thomas confirms “precedent” is not the gospel..."

My first thought was "What did Ginny tell Clarence now?".

WW

 

[konradv]

See: Clarence Thomas breaks with precedent

“He clarified, “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.”

Thomas has notably dissented from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, reflecting his broader skepticism of certain substantive due process rulings”.

For those interested in why the Majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is at odds with our Constitution and its understanding by those who framed and helped to ratify it, and is a glaring erroneous “precedent”, see Justice Thomas’s DISSENTING OPINION with whom Justice Scalia joins.

By contrast, Justice Kennedy in authoring the majority opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution being violated, as found in the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and is falsely alleged to have been violated by a number of States not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

See: MAJORITY OPINION Obergefell v. Hodges

The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores the Tenth Amendment’s powers reserved to the States and likewise ignores the fact that under our Constitution, Article V is the only lawful way to require the States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

.
JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

The problems in the country don’t start with what people in a committed relationship do, but with the notion that corporations are people. Reverse Citizenship United. It’s responsible for the much of the government corruption we’re seeing today.

 

[j-mac]

When you said: "Justice Thomas confirms “precedent” is not the gospel..."

My first thought was "What did Ginny tell Clarence now?".

WW

The Justice would run circles around you intellectually…

 

[johnwk]

When you said: "Justice Thomas confirms “precedent” is not the gospel..."

My first thought was "What did Ginny tell Clarence now?".

WW

Your adolescent comment is noted, WorldWatcher.

 

[konradv]

Your adolescent comment is noted, WorldWatcher.

What’s that supposed to mean? Sounds like a fascist dog whistle. Noted by whom?

 

[martybegan]

The problems in the country don’t start with what people in a committed relationship do, but with the notion that corporations are people. Reverse Citizenship United. It’s responsible for the much of the government corruption we’re seeing today.

Citizens United was correct. You can't restrict 1st amendment rights just because how people group themselves together.

Would you be just as happy to remove first amendment rights from Unions?

 

[johnwk]

Citizens United was correct. You can't restrict 1st amendment rights just because how people group themselves together.

Would you be just as happy to remove first amendment rights from Unions?

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions "any person", not any grouping of persons.

 

[martybegan]

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions "any person", not any grouping of persons.

and that group contains persons.

Better to have unfettered speech than restrictions that can be abused by one side against another.

 

[konradv]

Citizens United was correct. You can't restrict 1st amendment rights just because how people group themselves together.

Would you be just as happy to remove first amendment rights from Unions?

Corporations shouldn’t have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. The leveraged power puts the citizenry into a hole they can’t overcome.

 

[martybegan]

Corporations shouldn’t have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. The leveraged power puts the citizenry into a hole they can’t overcome.

People form corporations. Same as them forming unions, PACs and other organizations that have the right to express their ideas.

You of course would want Unions to maintain their rights to political speech because you are a hack.

 

[konradv]

People form corporations. Same as them forming unions, PACs and other organizations that have the right to express their ideas.

You of course would want Unions to maintain their rights to political speech because you are a hack.

You a mind reader? How would you know what I think about unions? They don’t have as much power as they used to, but MAGA will lie about it to prop up their tin god.

 

[martybegan]

You a mind reader? How would you know what I think about unions? They don’t have as much power as they used to, but MAGA will lie about it to prop up their tin god.

The civil service ones sure as hell do, just go to any Blue City.

Any restrictions you clowns would impose would only apply to your enemies. It's the same tired story all the time with the left.

 

[johnwk]

and that group contains persons.

Better to have unfettered speech than restrictions that can be abused by one side against another.

"any person", not any grouping of persons, such as a homosexual couple wanting marriages licenses.

 

[martybegan]

"any person", not any grouping of persons, such as a homosexual couple wanting marriages licenses.

lol wut?

 

[TimFitz]

When you said: "Justice Thomas confirms “precedent” is not the gospel..."

My first thought was "What did Ginny tell Clarence now?".

WW

Waiting for Leonard Leo to give him his instructions.

 

[johnwk]

lol wut?

A SC precedent which violates the text of our written Constitution and its documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text, is not gospel. Justice Thomas is correct.

Obergefell v. Hodges is bad precedent, and not in harmony with the legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

A SC precedent which violates the text of our written Constitution and its documented "legislative intent" which gives context to its text, is not gospel. Justice Thomas is correct.

Obergefell v. Hodges is bad precedent, and not in harmony with the legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Obergfell should have just said States would be forced to recognize same sex marriages issued by other States that allowed them via their own legislative process, under full faith and credit.

 

[Independent thinker]

See: Clarence Thomas breaks with precedent

“He clarified, “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.”

Thomas has notably dissented from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage, reflecting his broader skepticism of certain substantive due process rulings”.

For those interested in why the Majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is at odds with our Constitution and its understanding by those who framed and helped to ratify it, and is a glaring erroneous “precedent”, see Justice Thomas’s DISSENTING OPINION with whom Justice Scalia joins.

By contrast, Justice Kennedy in authoring the majority opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution being violated, as found in the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and is falsely alleged to have been violated by a number of States not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

See: MAJORITY OPINION Obergefell v. Hodges

The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores the Tenth Amendment’s powers reserved to the States and likewise ignores the fact that under our Constitution, Article V is the only lawful way to require the States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

.
JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Democrats are always saying that Americans evolve into different ways of thinking. The Constitution itself allows for the evolving of thoughts and ideas. Doesn't that mean that precedents should also evolve? I mean what if the precedent had been blacks are slaves? Would you now be saying that precdent should never be changed?