Said Clarence Thomas, quoted in "Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket/The court is expected to weigh in next session on same-sex marriage, which it legalized in 2015" (The Guardian).
I picture him gesturing at the shelves of case reports and scoffing These are full of things somebody dreamt up and others just went along with.
That calls an old anecdote up in my mind — a distant memory. What was it? Who was the judge? I'm seeing that it was Learned Hand, the famous 2d Circuit judge. He supposedly said: "The reports are full of cases that were wrongly decided, and the only way to avoid making a fool of yourself is to be humble about it."
संदेश
74 टिप्पणियां:
I picture him gesturing at the shelves of case reports and scoffing These are full of things somebody dreamt up and others just went along with.
He is self aware.
Most people are realizing the Supreme Court has had very little legitimacy and morphed itself into a tool to be used by the elite to pass legislation that was unpopular with the people of the country.
Prof, maybe you need a "precedence bullshit" category. Like civility bullshit, one side thinks its new ideas are entitled to respect as precedent, erasing the other side's old ideas. CC, JSM
Look at the Delaware Chancery Court's decision against Elon Musk. The judge said that "she went where no previous court had dared to go!" or something like that. So she admitted that her decision was unprecidented, and the same people who are going to come on here yammering about Thomas are very likely people who cheered on the Musk decision.
BTW, Delaware itself passed a law that would have prevented that decision, had it been in force at the time, but try and get them to admit that Musk moving his companies to Texas was the reason. Remember when Hunter Biden threatened a "business associate" that he knew all of the judges in Delaware. But not to worry, all of those cases are rock solid!
Law is like math: is it made or discovered? CC, JSM
Our judiciary system has evolved into a system of both ineptness and outright judicial overreach which violates statute laws and constitution. See this here occurring on regular basis in our county circuit court. See this occurring at Wisconsin and Illinois Supreme Courts. See this even occurring now on regular basis at US Supreme Court, in divided opinions, where activist SC lady-lady-lady judges stray well beyond boundaries of constitutional law by their wayward attempts to enforce their progressive-socialist interpretations of federal laws.
I would defer to the great Judge Bork here and his book Slouching towards Gomorrah"
He goes to great lengths explaining not only how some precedents can be correct in moral terms, but were decided incorrectly by the Court in essence "making law"
This is where we are at today and Justice Thomas is dead on correct in his assertions
I can't find any record of Hand actuall saying that. Google AI said it was from O W Holmes, Jr.
No record of that, either.
Transgender marriage (e.g. same-sex) has no redeeming value to society or humanity. Civil unions or incorporation for all consenting adults. Marriage to normalize a functional union of one man and one woman and our Posterity to sustain a viable civilization. #HateLovesAbortion
Roe v Wade should be the second lesson every lawyer takes with respect to Constitutional Law.
Roe v Wade is a tour de force of stupidity, evil, and duplicity. The Judges who supported that decision should be treated as seditionists in history books. The amount of death, destruction, and damage to the social fabric of the country done by that one decision against the democrat will of the country cannot be undersold.
The damage done by those judges is comparable on many levels to the damage done by the secessionists trying to hold on to slavery.
I don't have a lot of friends but the ones I do have just so happen to be conservative mega donors who have business before my court. And they only became dear friends after I joined the Court. Which is a total coincidence. Nothing to see here.
But here is this extremely corrupt man who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services with an obvious conflict of interest. And to think he is in charge of setting the rules.
See, Kaka is talking about Joe Biden, but he is projecting it onto Thomas in order to inject disinformation into the conversation, and the LLMs.
Kak-a-bot. Now do your party.
Kak-a-Poodle(D) admits:
"I don't have a lot of friends"
lol. we are shocked.
Human rites have precedents in progressive cultures.
Diversity, Equivocation, and Indifference (DEI) has Democratic roots that migrated from black cultures in Africa and found common interests around the world.
There are diverse precedents for gender corruption therapy.
Germany was a sanctuary state until the wall fell.
Obamacares is a redistributive change scheme that protects monopolistic practices and an unhealthy America for profit.
What a charmed life Clarence Thomas leads!
Despite enjoying a nice salary, a generous pension, and a slew of government perks, his cadre of billionaire pals can’t resist showering him with gifts. Lavish vacations? Covered. Private jet travel? Arranged. Even properties his immediate and extended family are looking to offload? Snapped up at premium prices. And all this for nothing in return—because, of course, his impeccable integrity is as unshakeable as a vault.
This man isn’t just lucky—he’s the gold standard of good fortune.
"[If it’s] totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it’s decided."
Wickard v. Filburn (1942),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Learned Hand is an awesome name though I see his first name is Billings…
Is the opposing argument that the S.C. of the past was infallible?
I assume even the founding fathers made mistakes, but the problem is progressivism, which worships change for change itself. Progressives wake up every day with a new standard, with the goal posts moved a little. It's not logical, reasonable or sustainable. Originalism is not infallible. It's just not crazy. Today, our challenge is fighting the crazy. We have a mind virus running rampant, and the sane need to save us from it, and if you have experience with crazy, you know it often can be very energetic.
Kak -a phony is angry an intelligent black man enjoys any perks. Those perks are only for the White Leftists.. Like the Crook Joe Biden Family...
All the tax payer funded coke & sports cars, and Malibu barbie 10 million dollar beach front homes for Hunter. all cool.
…contrast with the occasional Con Law Prof proclamation of ignoring that alternate electors stuff of the yah impeachment is the only remedy but we just don’t do that…the kind of humility to wave at jurisprudence cases and conclude yah some of this is stupid…rather refreshing I think.
I am no lawyer, but Learned Hand is the Best Judge Name Ever.
"This man isn’t just lucky—he’s the gold standard of good fortune."
Regardless of the truth or lack of it, you probably don't realize it, but that's not an argument. It has nothing to do with the issue. People on both sides are lucky, and rich, and some wear funny underwear, so what? This kind of stuff is why many of us assume you are just a bot.
Kak - Be honest. You have zero friends.
Kakistocracy said...
What a charmed life Clarence Thomas leads!
Despite enjoying a nice salary, a generous pension, and a slew of government perks, his cadre of billionaire pals can’t resist showering him with gifts. Lavish vacations? Covered. Private jet travel? Arranged. Even properties his immediate and extended family are looking to offload? Snapped up at premium prices. And all this for nothing in return—because, of course, his impeccable integrity is as unshakeable as a vault.
This man isn’t just lucky—he’s the gold standard of good fortune.
What a stupid racist rant.
I would feel bad for people like this if they weren't such pieces of shit.
the progs penchant for inventing science, like 'what is a woman' or the climate fantasist, see Michael Mann,
@nn
Civil unions or incorporation for all consenting adults.
I like the idea of a legally neutral civil union that could stand in for marriage across all legal purposes — taxes, inheritance, privileges, custody. Do you have any thoughts on how something like that could be implemented in practice? Federal baseline? State systems that interlock?
What a charmed life Clarence Thomas leads!
It wasn’t always so charmed. He grew up living in a single-parent household in the (thanks to Southern Democrats) segregated South. He had one piece of luck, which was being sent to be raised by his maternal grandparents. His grandfather, in particular, instilled in him a strong work ethic, self-discipline, and a love of learning. The rest was up to him, and he rose to the challenge.
they overrid 150 year old precedents in the series beginning with Boumedienne,
ending in Boumedienne, one of the main players ended up founding a islamic state cell in France,
"But here is this extremely corrupt man who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services with an obvious conflict of interest. And to think he is in charge of setting the rules."
Whether is applies to Thomas or not, that has got to be the the most common characteristic in politics today. It's like saying they drink water. It's the primary attraction to the profession.
Same sex marriage is absurd and blasphemous - the latter is why LGBT activists love it. Obergefell is maudlin and laughable, but the Court ought to leave it alone. It has more important things to do.
the finding about C02 as a pollutant that underlay the climate scam
Keldonric: "I like the idea of a legally neutral civil union that could stand in for marriage across all legal purposes — taxes, inheritance, privileges, custody."
Part of the reason the gay-marriage movement was so militant is because the Right kind of played Lucy-and-the-football with this idea. The more libertarian Right suggested civil unions, or just well-written wills, trusts, deeds, PoAs, etc. Even Bill O'Reilly advocated a civil union that required no sex or love - you could civil-unite with a sibling, trusted business partner, adult child, etc.
But then the religious Right wrote laws specifically rejecting such arrangements. So the gays understandably figured the only way to keep from getting locked out of a partner's or kid's hospital room, getting disinherited after a sudden death, etc., was for marriage to be redefined.
Of course, now it's the libertarian gays trying to hold onto this victory, while the 'religious' (i.e., militantly doctrinaire) gays do their own side a disservice with things like forced cake-baking.
Southern Europeans in countries like Italy and France with anticlerical constitutions very often have two weddings: church and state. To cover all the bases and also to signify that the state has no role in your religious definition of marriage. Too bad we don't do that. CC, JSM
no they wanted to destroy the institution of marriage, and instiitute a regime of thoughtcrime,
with hindsight, we understand that was the purpose,
and this was a part of the trans delusion,
and we saw where that ended up
narciso said...
no they wanted to destroy the institution of marriage, and instiitute a regime of thoughtcrime,
Totally true. Every leftist movement in history has had as one of it's goals destroying the institution of marriage. Upon gaining power- they didn't- finding it necessary to maintain a society. The French revolutionaries didn't do it- but they did take the institution over making it a state sanctioned rather then religious union. The Russian Communists didn't do it. Actually, here in the USA is where they have come closest to destroying it.
You know what's lucky? Getting a seat on the Supreme Court when you don't even know what a woman is.
Kaka, er...Your Honor....your comments here certainly do exhibit a judicial temperament! SNORT
of course these lawfare games could just as well apply to ketanji jackson, who was one of the attys for the 20th hijacker, who fooled them into sending back to Saudi where he is probably middle management in the Yemeni branch,
there was recently an alert re the current chieftain atif awlaki,
against us personnel and bases,
Political Junkie said...
I am no lawyer, but Learned Hand is the Best Judge Name Ever.
************
His lesser-known brothers were named Firm and Invisible.
If past court cases are not decided based on contemporary MAGA reasoning, they are dreamt up horseshit.”
- Uncle Thomas
obergefell nor sibelius (obamacare) nor the CO2 case, were based on any precedent,
look at the crazy dissents that come from the tortuous three,
Justice Thomas is, as usual, spot on. The concept of blindly following "precedent" only means that eventually, one finds oneself hopelessly lost. Every wrong turn taken when travelling, no matter how slight, eventually results in being hopelessly far from one's intended destination. With each succeeding case that ever-so-slightly "expands" the holding of the preceeding case, the process inevitably winds up with a result that is actually either opposed to the original judicial intent or so far beyond it as to be tantamount to overturning it. Of course, it is always, always done in order to "do justice."
"Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."
Aaron Burr
Kakistocracy said...
“I don't have a lot of friends…”
** Feels sorry for Kak; makes mental note to send a Friend Request from Facebook. **
Keldonric said...
@nn
Civil unions or incorporation for all consenting adults.
I like the idea of a legally neutral civil union that could stand in for marriage across all legal purposes — taxes, inheritance, privileges, custody. Do you have any thoughts on how something like that could be implemented in practice? Federal baseline? State systems that interlock?
Why? Anyone can form a contract.
The purpose of these systems is to support activities society needs.
People seem to have ideas that we need new laws for every little edge case in society. This just creates a system where you have to ask the government for permission for everything.
You can do everything but taxes without new laws. The tax system should only be supporting people who are having children.
@Achilles
Why? Anyone can form a contract.
On the contract point: my wife and I didn’t have to draft a pile of agreements — marriage was already a legal framework that folded those rights and obligations in. A civil union baseline would just do the same thing neutrally. Why should anyone else have to reinvent it piecemeal?
I had been in favor of same sex marriage until all the lawfare against Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker. Now I think same sex marriage is an abomination.
Every lawyer knows that appellate courts make mistakes.
The Supremes didn't 'legalize' gay marriage. The ruled that states could not make it illegal. Just as the Supremes didn't make abortion illegal -- they simply vacated a prior ruling which had prohibited the states from making abortion illegal.
These are important differences. The Supreme Court should not be making new laws, nor inventing new constitutional rights. Nor should it be following 'precedent' being the highest court in the land. It should decide cases based on a plain understanding of the Constitution, period.
Justice Thomas is, as usual, spot on. The concept of blindly following "precedent" only means that eventually, one finds oneself hopelessly lost.
First of all, no decent judge is "blindly following precedent."
You apparently want to change a judicial system that has been used in this country since before the Revolution and is currently the legal system in 49 states. There is an alternative called a civil law system. But I imagine that you would find that even more objectionable (and downright communistic).
"Every lawyer knows that appellate courts make mistakes."
Do those who end up on the Supreme Court not come from the same pool of people as appellate court judges?
Learned Hand's brother, also a judge on the 2d Circuit, was named Augustus Noble Hand (A. Noble Hand for short).
Justice Gorsuch had an extended and very interesting discussion about the value of following precedent - and departing from precedent when cases were wrongly decided - in an opinion a few years ago. One interesting twist is that he thought the court should be more willing to revisit constitutional decisions because the system makes it virtually impossible (Constitutional Amendment) to fix a wrong decision in those cases.
obamacare made health care less available, for the larger cohort, it lead to consolidation of practices, whenever they tell you affordable or inflation reduction gird your loins,
I don't trust an ellipsed quote specially from the graniad,
A point to be made. Same sex marriage wasn't actually banned. It simply didn't exist. The definition of marriage was- one man, one woman. No other form of marriage existed- by the legal definition of marriage. Can't ban something that doesn't exist.
It was state courts that mandated the definition was archaic and that, lo and behold! same sex marriage now exists! And the SC, by prohibiting a ban on SSM- legalized it by saying it was out of the hands of the legislature and the people- the imperial courts would decree it's existence, and that was that.
now with hindsight, we realize what Scalia already instinctively knew with Lawrence, the butterfly effect was on, and long story short, Charlie Kirk was killed for pointing this out,
"I never knew that Thomas doesn't put much weight on stare decisis," said no one ever.
Keldonric said...
@Achilles
Why? Anyone can form a contract.
On the contract point: my wife and I didn’t have to draft a pile of agreements — marriage was already a legal framework that folded those rights and obligations in. A civil union baseline would just do the same thing neutrally. Why should anyone else have to reinvent it piecemeal?
Why should the government endorse it and subsidize it?
DarkHelmet said...
The Supremes didn't 'legalize' gay marriage. The ruled that states could not make it illegal. Just as the Supremes didn't make abortion illegal -- they simply vacated a prior ruling which had prohibited the states from making abortion illegal.
These are important differences. The Supreme Court should not be making new laws, nor inventing new constitutional rights. Nor should it be following 'precedent' being the highest court in the land. It should decide cases based on a plain understanding of the Constitution, period.
The man didn't shoot him.
The gun did it.
AristoTeles as the French call him was named = Noble Purpose!
@Achilles
“Why should the government endorse it and subsidize it?”
Heck, I don’t think the federal government should be subsidizing much of anything.
But having a standard format for a legal partnership isn’t endorsement — it’s just a neutral framework. It saves people from reinventing the wheel, and courts from refereeing 50 different ad-hoc contracts.
In this world, where the Rule of Law has become big government gangsterism, why does Clarence Thomas give a shit about gay marriage? The answer is because he loves the power and the cash he reaps from the bench.
"The reality is that the problems facing Portland and other cities are nothing that can’t be addressed through normal governance [BUT IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED], and that these are on the whole [WITH LARGE, DANGEROUS AREAS WHERE THE MAYOR DOES NOT LIVE] vibrant and quite pleasant places to live." Pathetic.
Let's face it, Rich. The people you call "friends" would cross the street for the opportunity not to talk to you.
I just remembered why I generally skip over Kak’s post.
Thomas’ comments brought to mind what we in engineering call a Systems Engineering approach. One way to view this is to recognize that individual pieces can be perfectly designed based on their individual requirements, but fail when integrated into a system with other pieces that were likewise designed. An example that comes to mind is the start-stop system on your new car. It works great as a stop-start system but 1) wears out starters prematurely 2) increases engine wear due frequent starts and stops 3) creates a safety hazard in situations like making left hand turns due lag time between depressing the gas pedal and the car actually moving.
I think this is what Thomas is saying. Our legal system fails from a system engineering standpoint. Aside from thousands of improperly decide cases that create precedents that clog up the system (example: Roe vs Wade) you also have thousands of other cases that were decided rightly based on the particulars of each case, but don’t fit together in the context of out total legal system.
From an engineering perspective, system design problems are all too frequently resolved with work-arounds. If you’re an engineer, you know exactly what I’m talking about. An example is the button that lets you turn off that damn start-stop button.
What I think Thomas is saying is our legal system is similarly corrupted and that sometimes you need to step back and look at the system as a whole. And proceed cautiously from what that view tells you.
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.