664
Clarence Thomas calls out federal court for ignoring precedent despite his doing same with Roe
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
664 points (99.1% liked)
News
36142 readers
3479 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
looks at article
He's talking about a lower court not following a Supreme Court precedent.
The Supreme Court is able to overrule Supreme Court precedent in later cases. It happens only rarely, but it does happen. There's a list of such rulings somewhere I remember on Wikipedia, several pages. Roe v. Wade was one such example.
But lower courts are not supposed to do that.
goes looking for Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Thank you for posting the wiki article, and regardless of how hypocritical this specific headline actually is, fuck Clarence Thomas for all the other reasons too. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-reveals-omissions-of-gifted-private-travel-to-justice-clarence-thomas-from-harlan-crow
It's nuance that doesn't matter.
The fact is that this Supreme Court is a joke, and why should anyone respect it in any way?
He is the one who destroyed the credibility of the court. The precedent that the SC has set is that precedent doesn't matter. The judge should do what he thinks is fair. He shouldn't be bound by rules that very clearly don't bind anyone else, including the fifth district court.
Yeah, as deliciously ironic as it is that it was Thomas who was tasked with this, lower courts are supposed to rule based on precedent, and if anybody is going to overturn that precedent, it needs to be SCOTUS. Now, back in the day that would be done to overturn bullshit like Dred Scott v Sandford or Pace v Alabama once people finally got their heads far enough out of their assholes.
This court? Not so much.