Justice Clarence Thomas is finding increasingly creative ways to justify reshaping long-standing laws.
During a rare appearance at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the George H.W. Bush–appointed justice said the Supreme Court should take a more critical approach to settled precedent, arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,” ABC News reported.
Thomas, 77, compared his Supreme Court colleagues to passengers on a train, and said: ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.”
He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
73 Comments
AbidanYre@lemmy.world · 174 pts · 318d
What?
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 121 pts · 318d
It's better than saying, "I've been bribed a shit ton and no one is caring, so I'll say and do whatever I want."
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 318d
An orangutan is driving the train and apparently you're cool with that.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 19 pts · 318d
There's pressure valves going off all over the place, and he's fixing it by shovelling in more coal.
MML@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 317d
I think he called Trump an orangutan, let's tell Daddy and get him fired .
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 318d
It's the old orangutan-train-engineer argument, which gained legal precedent in Plessy v. Ferguson, brought by passage of an 1887 Florida law, whereby states began to require that railroads furnish separate accommodations for each race.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 318d
Yeah, it's crazy because, if the train is functioning perfectly fine, and has been for centuries, why does it matter who's driving it?
He wants to be the driver. That's why. He calls into question the way things have worked because he wants to take over.
forrgott@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 318d
And besides, the train driver does not have any control over the route the train will take.
Asafum@feddit.nl · 106 pts · 318d
"Left wing activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges! The left! The left wing activist judges!"
... fucking projection ass hypocrites. Always.
Zink@programming.dev · 24 pts · 318d
Legislating from the bench!!!
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 318d
We can NEVER forget that this is what they do
IHeartBadCode@fedia.io · 84 pts · 318d
This is correct, but not in the sense that he provides. Society changes, what was okay before may not be okay now. Weighing precedent and modern society is a careful process. Tossing off precedent should have justification for why it's being shrug and there needs to a preponderance that this is indeed the shift of society.
Walking in and saying, "well we should just outright critical" is absolutely not the way to do it. Overturning previous case law should happen, but that shouldn't be the fucking default. And when you do overturn previous case law, you really need to bring a fuck ton of support, not, "meh we changed our mind." Being a contrarian for sake of rocking the boat isn't how our highest court should operate.
chisel@piefed.social · 12 pts · 318d
Yes, but on the other hand: he got his and fuck yours.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 66 pts · 318d
"One of the good ones."
If everything falls to pure fascism, I hope I at least get to see the leopards eat Clarence's face.
PhilipTheBucket@piefed.social · 15 pts · 318d
I will hope, but it seems a little unlikely. Somehow, the most craven ones seem to escape justice most of the time. It's the true believers who rush out to the front, people like Stephen Miller or Alina Habba, who tend to start to catch some strays as the shit hits the fan. The dude who's sitting in the back quietly doing 100 times more damage seems to eventually get away on a boat to the Seychelles or something. He might get impeached in 5 years, or he might live out his days secure in the knowledge that he can drive his fucking RV around and do whatever he wants.
tburkhol@lemmy.world · 55 pts · 318d
Is he admitting this is how he writes his opinions?
forrgott@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 318d
It's also meaningless, in the sense that it describes the entirety of society.
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 318d
Going to flight school before piloting a 737 full of passengers is just a social construct, brah.
forrgott@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 318d
Thank you for illustrating the definition of thought terminating cliche. That's like, my entire point.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 318d
Yes, I was making a joke about it as if we were having a conversation or posting on a message board.
Like you mentioned, it was to further illustrate your point, and to bring some levity to the situation. My apologies.
forrgott@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 318d
Oof. This has turned into a pretty good example of why I think it's stupid when people basically get offended when people don't "get the joke" in regards to written sarcasm. But I clearly misinterpreted your intention, and made no attempt to get clarification - so my bad! Sorry about that.
chisel@piefed.social · 6 pts · 318d
Petition to make every fediverse comment require narration so that sarcasm can be easily detected.
Archer@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 317d
Goddamn liberals and their aggressive reasonableness!
/s
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 318d
kbal@fedia.io · 30 pts · 318d
Sure. Why should the third car on the train follow the cars ahead? Break free from the track, accept the bribe, jump the rails and chart your own course.
SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 318d
The bible is something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. God doesn't write.
tux@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 318d
Ironically I don’t disagree with him but for completely different reasons. It’s pretty obvious he wants to use this as an excuse to do whatever he’s paid to do by the biggest bribe.
But Jefferson pushed for vast changes and “revolution” (not the violent type which honestly feels pretty naive) every generation. Because why should the rules and ideals and commitment of the dead hold back the present and future.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 317d
I have always thought precedent, when it comes to interpreting laws, should have an expiration date. If congress doesn't pass a law to support the precedent, then it is no longer valid after that date. For constitutional interpretations, once past the expiration, a lower court can't use it as justification anymore.
Natanael@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 317d
That works great and all until somebody tries to block renewal of basic human rights. Put constitutional referendums on a schedule.
Here in Sweden two consecutive elected governments have to approve changes to the constitution. Seems like another useful tool to prevent abuse.
Lower court precedence, however, sure it would be nice with expiration dates so legislature has to authorize it explicitly to keep it. You could even have boards whose responsibility is to translate precedence from courts into law proposals to be voted on.
tux@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 317d
With the US 2 party system and first past the post voting system practically nothing would ever change then. Which does mean one crazy wannabe dictator can’t do as much damage. But also means getting progressive policies pushed through would also be impossible.
But I do like that idea in theory, once we solve our 2 party problem then something like that would make a lot of sense. I don’t know how we will ever solve that, figured for sure after January 6th and COVID that a real 3rd party would gain traction? And yet here we are.
nosuchanon@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 317d
**Translation:**The law is whatever you pay me to make the law.
chiocciola@lemmy.cafe · 15 pts · 318d
He needs to be removed.
not_that_guy05@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 318d
*His head needs to be removed.
Brought to you by the guillotine gang.
chiocciola@lemmy.cafe · 6 pts · 318d
I’m a fan of burning at the stake, but I won’t turn down beheading.
watson387@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 318d
Why not both?
chiocciola@lemmy.cafe · 3 pts · 318d
I suppose we could warm them up on the stake and then finish it on the guillotine
not_that_guy05@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 317d
Medium rare
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 318d
#GuillotineParty
SPRUNT@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 318d
Even the actual gospel isn't gospel to these demons.
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 318d
Lmao orangutan is a particularly apt metaphor
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 318d
isclarencethomasdeadyet
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · 13 pts · 318d
Chewbacca defense
Gates9@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 318d
These people are the real “Satanists”. They believe in a will to power and nothing else.
Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 318d
Hey hey, don't lump the satanists in with these pieces of shit, they are actually generally pretty cool in my experience.
Gates9@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 318d
That’s why I used scare quotes, and not that “Satan worship” is even “real”, historically speaking, in so much as it represents the exaltation of material reality and the nihilistic pursuit of power for personal worldly gain, these “Christians” exemplify it far more than the self-described “Satanists”.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 318d
I wonder how much these public statements cost whoever paid him to make them.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 317d
they aren't paid per statement, they're paid in batch. like, they're given a ... wtf do i know, some kind of compensation, then they make a whole lot of these statements, but it's not like there's a 1:1 mapping between reward and action. because if there was, somebody could point that out and say it's bribery. like this, the reward is always "for something else".
SabinStargem@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 317d
If Clarence is sentenced at Nuremberg, I suggest that it should be a drawing and quartering by his motorcoach fleet.
NutWrench@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 318d
What a stupid metaphor. Settled law is called "precedent." If there's an orangutan driving the train it's because YOU GUYS made that possible.
Zeddex@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 317d
There is an orangutan driving the train. His name is Trump.
RandomlyGeneratedName@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 317d
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 317d
....I have no idea. What the holy fuck did you just say? Was that English, Clarence?
Archer@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 317d
Oh that’s easy, stare decisis for things we like and overturning everything we don’t like. Simple!
SabinStargem@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 317d
acchariya@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 318d
Is it a new motorhome?
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social · 9 pts · 318d
Supreme court justices are not actually that great at reasoning, especially the conservatives. Everyone should listen to 5-4, they do a great job revealing just how stupid the supreme court can be.
xyzzy@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 318d
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social · 8 pts · 318d
There is definitely some of that, probably even mostly that, but you'll never convince me Sam Alito is even a middling intellect
BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz · 9 pts · 318d
BUT this DOESNT APply to Their Rulings! THEIR rulings ARE Gospel!
pinheadednightmare@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 318d
Corrupt! Fuck this dude. He single handedly has been a main factor of why the US has gone to shit.
not_that_guy05@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 318d
Not just him don't forget Roberts.
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social · 6 pts · 318d
Roberts, between his hatred of fair elections and manipulation of the gullible press that echoed his "balls and strikes" myth making, might be the person most detrimental to US democracy
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 318d
Alito
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 318d
Why would we care what this money-hole thinks. Especially when this money-hole accepts bribes.
prex@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 317d
And the rape, don't forget about the rape.
omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 318d
"Because I was paid to"
Aljernon@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 317d
When the US constitution was written, it was assumed they didn't have to spell out exactly how the judiciary would work because the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition was over a millennia old without getting written down (predating statute law) but apparently that assumption was wrong.
yesman@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 318d
That sounds like the Living Constitution with extra steps.
_stranger_@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 317d
I really need to make a version of this gif that has dollar signs on the glasses
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 318d
I don't care what his bullshit reasons are
theneverfox@pawb.social · 3 pts · 318d
I do
What the fuck does that even mean? Does he not understand how trains work? Why are the supreme Court the passengers?
I have so many questions
AmericanEconomicThinkTank@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 317d
Cash in pocket doesn't seem to be a very bonkers reason to me.
Wrong? Sure. Foolish? Absolutely. Short-sighted? No doubt.
But bonkers? Who wouldn't sell their fellow man out for a few extra bucks? Hell, a nice new RV sure sounds nice, maybe a vacation to go along with it.
StepUp2DaStreets@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 317d
I really wish he would've taken the John Oliver deal for that sexy beast of an RV to retire... oh well. Here we are
HubertManne@piefed.social · 3 pts · 317d
Im sure in the rulings he won't give any explanation at all. Every time no explanation is given I assume the explanation is because fuck the people and the constitution that was built around the principle of power coming from it.
Ileftreddit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 317d
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 317d
What it must be like to be a reptile in a human skin.
altphoto@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 318d
Again... Personal limo plane with jacuzzi and pool but this time legal 21y pool ladies in bikini. The plane's name is probably the "bonkers"