By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaking at the Catholic University of America, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the infallibility of settled legal precedent, suggesting some rulings may lack a strong foundation. Thomas, part of the court’s conservative majority, emphasized that precedent should be based on more than just theoretical underpinnings and respectful of legal tradition. He further stated that he feels no obligation to uphold a precedent if it doesn’t make sense. This perspective comes as the court is poised to address significant cases, potentially including a challenge to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Read the original article here
Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on the upcoming Supreme Court docket, and that’s a pretty loaded statement. What does it really mean when a Justice, particularly one with a long tenure and a reputation for a certain judicial philosophy, suggests that established legal principles might not be the deciding factor in future rulings? It throws into question the very foundation of our legal system, the idea that the law provides stability and predictability.
This seemingly casual remark raises concerns about the consistency of the court’s decisions. If precedents, which are previous rulings that serve as guidelines for future cases, can be disregarded, what exactly *will* guide the justices? Some might argue this opens the door to decisions driven by personal ideologies, political agendas, or even external influences. The lack of accountability that seems to be at play here is alarming.
It’s natural to consider the implications of such a stance. If a justice feels unbound by prior rulings, it logically follows that any existing precedent, regardless of how well-established, could be overturned. This could lead to a legal landscape that is constantly shifting, making it difficult for individuals and businesses to understand their rights and obligations. The potential for chaos is real.
The prospect of the court potentially overturning rulings on issues like same-sex marriage, which are well-established and widely accepted by the public, could be on the horizon. This opens up a whole can of worms politically, putting the GOP in a tough spot with beliefs that are out of step with public opinion.
Furthermore, if precedents are disregarded, then any ruling made by the current court could be undone in the future when a new set of justices is seated. It essentially creates a system where the law is only valid as long as the ruling justices agree with it. Where does that leave the concept of “equal justice under law” when the interpretation of that very law is subject to the whims of a few individuals? It’s a slippery slope, and the bottom is a very dangerous place.
The impact of this approach extends beyond the court itself. It erodes public trust in the legal system, making it seem as though the law is simply a tool to achieve desired political outcomes. This cynicism can have far-reaching consequences, including increased social unrest and a lack of faith in our institutions.
The implications are particularly stark when considering the lifetime appointments justices receive. If their decisions can dramatically alter the lives of millions, and they are not held to a consistent standard based on the established body of law, there needs to be some oversight. How can one feel safe in a system that is prone to constant change due to the will of a single justice, or even a majority on the bench?
It’s also worth noting the potential for this stance to be perceived as judicial activism, the very thing that conservatives have long criticized. It seems the very standards they used to call for might now be ignored.
In essence, what Clarence Thomas seems to be suggesting is a shift away from the concept of legal consistency and towards a system where the justices have more freedom to apply their own interpretations of the law. This approach creates both legal and political instability that undermines the rule of law.