Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent
In a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court case announced Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy call for his colleagues to overturn "demonstrably erroneous decisions" even if they have been upheld for decades -- prompting legal observers to say Thomas was laying the groundwork to overturn the seminal 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion.
Thomas' blunt opinion came in Gamble v. United States, a case concerning the so-called "double-jeopardy" doctrine, which generally prohibits an individual from being charged twice for the same crime. But both pro-life and pro-choice advocates quickly noted the implications of his reasoning for a slew of other future cases, including a potential revisiting of Roe.
"When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it," Thomas wrote, noting that lower federal courts should...
Jim Lincoln wrote: Judge Thomas is not as important as Roberts âť— excerpt from,"Will John Roberts Block the Triumph of Legal Conservatism?" --- no âť— https://tinyurl.com/ya74akph
There is no such thing as independent judges. Either they can read, and decide according to original intent, or they feel the pulse of culture, and decide according to the "living constitution" fairy tale. Homosexual "marriage" exists today, and it wouldn't without Justice Robert's vote. He felt the culture's call. Maybe you think that is independent.
Garrett Epps wrote: .... â€śThatâ€™s not law,â€ť President Donald Trump said of Tigarâ€™s decision. â€śThis was an Obama judge.â€ť
Roberts had never shown any interest in taking a public part in Americaâ€™s partisan wars; nonetheless, in a statement to Mark Sherman of the AP, Roberts contradicted Trump: â€śWe do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
[Read: John Robertsâ€™s biggest test is yet to come] https://tinyurl.com/yxhxw46m .... Roberts..., is not by temperament a â€śswingâ€ť justice. His hesitations about moving the Court (and the country) to the right, it appears, are largely a question of pace; he believes that it is better to proceed slowly toward dismantling the New Deal, legislative protection of civil and voting rights, environmental protections, the remaining regulation of campaign finance, and the remaining shreds of the right of reproductive choice....
excerpt from,"Will John Roberts Block the Triumph of Legal Conservatism?" --- no âť— https://tinyurl.com/ya74akph
MsE wrote: Dear Lord, please let this turn out to be what it appears to be. To have a reversal of that ungodly Roe v. Wade law would cause a huge flood of joy as it would satisfy one of my deepest hopes and desires.
Amen MsE, What a wonderful thing that would be. Christians don't get abortions or promote them in any way, but the unsaved murder their innocent unborn children simply for convenience sake.
""When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it," Thomas wrote,""
How about the - "demonstrably erroneous precedent" - of sodomite abomination becoming acceptable and legalized??
The term homophobia is clearly an attack on normal people with normal moral standards. Yet it has encouraged society to use it as a precedent which is obviously 'erroneous' indeed criminal. Sadly there are too many depraved reprobates blind to the truth which prevents intelligent perception.
Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:"
The liberals are trying to keep Justice Ginsberg held together with duct tape and chewing gum but sooner rather than later she will have to keep her appointment with death. Justice Thomas is as about as real as one can get about the precedent of legal abortion in which Mrs. McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) made it plain and clear that she was lying. Of course the law should be reviewed with a decision based on 47 years of fact and science. And of course, liberals know that fact and science will clearly without a doubt that the unborn are fully human and deserve the same equal and unalienable rights and protections as those who are born.
Dear Lord, please let this turn out to be what it appears to be. To have a reversal of that ungodly Roe v. Wade law would cause a huge flood of joy as it would satisfy one of my deepest hopes and desires.