362
Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
362 points (98.9% liked)
News
36118 readers
3060 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
Just a reminder that this fucker sexually harassed Anita Hill for years.
And subjected other colleagues and associates to his porn addiction at the very least.
It won't be precedent. It will be amount of RVs donated.
MOTOR COACH!
God, that story seems like a lifetime ago.
"precedent" was destroyed in 2022. The Supreme Court are just tools of the christian cult. They have destroyed American law.
American law is as stable as a house of cards when half the country would rather base the law on presumptions of what 18th century white supremacists might have preferred to the needs of Americans in the 21st century...
Precedent was destroyed long before then...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don't forget:
A big reason Thomas is a SC judge is Biden ran a sham confirmation hearing for his "good buddies across the aisle"....
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/biden-anita-hill-women-senate-clarence-thomas-213864
When Biden bitched and moaned about how it wasnt like "the good ole days" is because back then he was at best a useful idiot, if not outright intentionally helping the far right religious extremists who now run the GOP.
Decades of neoliberalism is coming home to roost with trump. A real party never would have let them set all this shit up over the decades.
So wouldn't this mean that past SCOTUS decisions are irrelevant to new cases? So people could legitimately keep bringing near-identical cases to the SCOTUS level and have a legitimate expectation for them to be decided? That sounds obviously unwise even by current SCOTUS standards.
Mind you, Thomas probably wants to go by a rule of "precedent matters when I say it does", so consistency is irrelevant.
I think to a degree it's never mattered. If the composition of the Supreme Court has changed enough, then they just come up with their own ad-hoc justification to make new rulings over old cases. Before her death, I remember RBG was encouraging the public to bring new cases regarding older rulings.
We gotta change this lifetime appointment bullshit. Fuck this uncle tom loser asshole.
A lot of words for "I don't like it"
"I'm getting paid to not like it"
I think the gratuity is just a bonus. I think these really are his deeply held personal beliefs.
Clarence Thomas is the kind of man who after spending 12 years a slave would go out and hunt runaway slaves for his own new land.
Why start respecting 200 years of norms in American law now?
There is an extremely long history of discussion about Clarence Thomas and stare decisis / precedent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/us/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-precedent.html
I have completely lost all confidence in our government.
Just Clarence Thomas doing Clarence Thomas things.
When one must make the choice between established precedent or a luxury motorhome, obviously precedent isn't gospel for Clarence Thomas
"He regularly slips into his speeches his love of driving it through the American heartland — 'the part we fly over.'
Imagine Clarence rolling up into Gary, Indiana in this thing to see "The Real America":
Look at you assuming this rapist of Anita Hill had morals and ethics in the first place.
Ok, then when trump leaves and a democrat packs the court, then who gives a fuck? It’s not like the number of judges is gospel or anything. Or an age limit, again if we’re not going to follow the rules then who fucking cares
As much as I want it, I don't think the Democrats will ever be willing to pack the court. -and that makes me a little depressed.
The last time they had the chance, polling told them Americans wouldn't be happy so they left it alone.
It's neat how they pay attention to what Americans want when it's the politically easy thing to do.
Not like precedent was a large reason for rulings from this court so far.
Ok so how do the citizens pull him out of that office?
There are ways to remove a supreme Court justice, however given the political landscape the only practical way he's leaving is through his death.
Well, we've tried ballot box, soap box, and jury box. What's left?
We can't, of course. SCotUS judges can only be removed by congressional impeachment, and we all know what a comically shit hope that is currently.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fun fact, Clarence Thomas' reaction to Samuel L Jackson in Django Unchained was, "Sam's getting soft in his old age."
Reboot Congress in next elections, who have power to impeach the Supreme Court members and replace them. Reboot SC with stricter control. Likewise, strip many of the assumed powers the President has. Then a mass-cleanup of the Federal legal system to erase all the corruption that has been slowly injected over the last 40 years. Fixable, but a lot of focused work that will likely span a decade or more. Also likely something pretty historically unprecedented at this scale.
Biggest problem is: there needs to be a face, a movement. It doesn't have to be one person, it won't be Democrats, and it has to be ostensibly decentralized, especially from Big Tech, as they have tools to manipulate everything now.
Euphemism for " expect some crazy illegal shit to happen"
So gay marriage is out, what else will they be hearing this session? It’s gonna get so much worse, I’m sure.
I remember the joke from after Roe got overturned being that Uncle Tom was gonna legislate his way back to interracial marriage being illegal so he could sneak his way out of his own marriage.
Joke?
Yeah we got a bunch of analysts telling us a few months ago, no they'll leave that one alone. lol sure they're gonna take Roe, but not Obergefell? They just have to have the balls to write the goddamn thing, putrid as it will be, and god knows he's got 'em.
Constitutional Law Professors right now
Precedent is important, but it's superseded by whether or not the plaintiff has taken Thomas on vacation recently.
Like the law matters to anyone in 2025
The precedent is the legal tradition you pompous buffoon (Thomas not OP)
The Krusty the Clown of justice.
Clarese Dumbass should've been canned years ago
view more: next ›