Sunday, September 28, 2025

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

Posted by retort at 06:10 PM | 41 COMMENTS | permalink

More

Thomas, 77, reasoned that some precedents were simply "something somebody dreamt up and others went along with."

[image or embed]

-- The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast.bsky.social) Sep 27, 2025 at 11:54 AM

Comments

Someone is shopping a court decision for a new rv!

#1 | Posted by 2020Rocks at 2025-09-28 06:20 PM

So Justice Clarence is saying the Supreme Court might be incorrect in its decisions?

Might he be projecting?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-28 06:29 PM

@#1 ... Someone is shopping a court decision for a new rv! ...

Yeah, there's that aspect as well.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-28 06:30 PM

Gotta help Trump out by distracting from the Epstein files.

The majority of states legalized gay marriage before the Supreme Court weighed in.

This is just more division and hate being spread by the GOP.

Wonder if Clarence Thomas is ready to revisit whether interracial marriages should remain legal.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-09-28 06:44 PM

"Precedent" is SO yesterday", Clarence went on to say. "Now BRIBES and Paybacks are IN... from Chief Kegger on down!".

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2025-09-28 06:57 PM

Absolute garbage

#6 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-09-28 06:58 PM

So Justice Clarence is saying the Supreme Court

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-28 06:29 PM | Reply

He's saying they're going to re-interpret the 14th Amendment and throw out a 150+ years of precedent so they can end Anchor Babies.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-09-28 07:03 PM

end Anchor Babies.
#7 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

America is a nation of immigrants.

Despite European Americans deciding they own it.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-09-28 07:08 PM

I told you so

#9 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-09-28 07:10 PM

And ...

If the Roberts Court outlaws Gay Marriage, then might Pres Trump seek all those marriage certificates and classify those who had a Gay Marriage as part of a domestic terrorism organization?

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-28 07:16 PM

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
en.wikipedia.org

... Before 1933, male homosexual acts were illegal in Germany under Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code. The law was not consistently enforced, however, and a thriving gay culture existed in major German cities. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, the first homosexual movement's infrastructure of clubs, organizations, and publications was shut down. After the Rhm purge in 1934, persecuting homosexuals became a priority of the Nazi police state. A 1935 revision of Paragraph 175 made it easier to bring criminal charges for homosexual acts, leading to a large increase in arrests and convictions. Persecution peaked in the years prior to World War II and was extended to areas annexed by Germany, including Austria, the Czech lands, and Alsace"Lorraine.

The Nazi regime considered the elimination of all manifestations of homosexuality in Germany one of its goals. Men were often arrested after denunciation, police raids, and through information uncovered during interrogations of other homosexuals.

Those arrested were presumed guilty, and subjected to harsh interrogation and torture to elicit a confession. ...


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-28 07:18 PM

Because Roberts damn sure won't hold the line.

#12 | Posted by fresno500 at 2025-09-28 07:19 PM

This is an admission that we've long suspected. The Supreme Court is no longer an independent judiciary. The conservative majority is now in the business of incrementally destroying the Constitutional Republic of the United States.

IOW, greasing the skids for Donald Trump.

This should come as a surprise to no one.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-09-28 07:31 PM

I know this phrase triggers/annoys some people, but I'm a firm believer that "everything goes in cycles". Things will go back to the states, and then later be covered by federal laws, or explicitly in the constitution. Legal recognitions of marriage has always been a tricky issue, especially when you compare interracial, same-sex, and polygamous unions.

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-09-28 07:33 PM

Is that so?

Doesn't the arc of history bend towards freedom and justice?

What rights have been taken away once recognized?

I

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-09-28 07:48 PM

@#14 ... know this phrase triggers/annoys some people, but I'm a firm believer that "everything goes in cycles". ...

A couple questions ...

1) Pres Trump seems to be short-circuiting the "cycles" with his rush towards autocracy. How does that figure into your equation?

2) Unless and until such a "cycle" happens, what might an autocratic Pres trump do to gay people who followed the law and were married?



#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-28 08:04 PM

"Doesn't the arc of history bend towards freedom and justice?"

Not always. History goes in cycles.

#17 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-09-29 07:03 AM

This thread is about the U.S Supreme Court and, by the admission of Justice Thomas, no longer intends to abide by precedent but rather the nonsensical whims of a power hunger grifter.

Sticking to the subject, my question is . . . . What's in it for them? In the long run?

#18 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-09-29 08:19 AM

Clearance Thomas is saying that ideology and bribes are more important than precedent.

What's in it for them? In the long run?

The long run? No no .... short term...bags of cash.

#19 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-09-29 11:42 AM

BTW at 77 Clearance Thomas does not have a "long term".

#20 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-09-29 11:43 AM

Wonder if Clarence Thomas is ready to revisit whether interracial marriages should remain legal.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-09-28 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

That would make Joe Biden really happy.

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-09-29 12:32 PM

America is a nation of immigrants.

Despite European Americans deciding they own it.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-09-28 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag

And if it weren't for the work of European Americans, you wouldn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-09-29 12:35 PM

We also would have intact Forests,Grasslands,and other Ecosystems.

European Colonialism is Blight On Humanity and the World.

Economic Growth is the Greatest Threat to our living World.

#23 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2025-09-29 02:13 PM

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Says who?

#24 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2025-09-29 02:18 PM

BTW at 77 Clearance Thomas does not have a "long term".

#20 | Posted by Nixon

It's too long for my taste in all honesty. The only thing worse is him dying while Trump is in power.

#25 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2025-09-29 02:24 PM

Perhaps the historically "amenable" gent just wants in on the ground floor of Trump's quite-plausible Med-Bed Time Share Franchise scam. Now, if that's a bridge too far for you, I'm inclined to suspect you hold a degree from Trump University.

#26 | Posted by dutch46 at 2025-09-29 10:12 PM

"America is a nation"

*sigh*

Didn't they ever teach in you in school that Africa is not a country?
It's a continent.

Likewise, America isn't a country; it's TWO continents.

Likewise, Russia isn't a country; it's a different planet.

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-09-30 03:31 PM

Precedent must be followed if it's a precedent that fascists like.

It can be disregarded if it's a precedent they don't like.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-09-30 03:46 PM

- Russia isn't a country; it's a different planet.

We are fast becoming a Russia clone; MAGA has copied their media propaganda machine, their dictatorial gov strongman, and their KGB. Not to mention their billionaire corporate elite funding machine.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2025-09-30 03:54 PM

Russia has a Supreme Court, or whatever they call it. Actually, they're just a group of bobbleheads whose only job is to act as a second source of agreement with Mr. Putin.

It sounds like our own U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of turning themselves into copy-cats.

#30 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-09-30 06:30 PM

Trump always did envy Putin's style.

#31 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-09-30 07:41 PM

"Precedent doesn't matter [as long as we achieve Christian Nationalist goals]."

Say the quiet part out loud, Clarence.

#32 | Posted by zarnon at 2025-10-01 12:44 AM

@#32 ... "Precedent doesn't matter [as long as we achieve Christian Nationalist goals]." ...

I do not see a link for that quote.

What's yer got?

#33 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-10-01 12:57 AM

@#2 ... So Justice Clarence is saying the Supreme Court might be incorrect in its decisions? ...

That leads me to wonder ...

Who, or what entity, may have purchased his current opinion?


#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-10-01 01:05 AM

"I do not see a link for that quote."

That's because the bracketed part was the opinion portion.

And frankly ... spot-on.

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-10-01 02:06 AM

@#35 ... And frankly ... spot-on. ...

I may not disagree.

However, I'd still ask for the link ...

#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-10-01 02:41 AM

Clarence Thomas has an understanding of the law roughly on a par with his commitment to ethics.

#37 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-10-01 05:07 AM

And if it weren't for the work of European Americans, you wouldn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

#22 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

The musings of a sad loser with zero real accomplishments.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2025-10-01 08:35 AM

A strong case can be made for reversing some precedents but no case can be made for decisions that are contrary to the explicit wording of the constitution!

#39 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2025-10-01 12:42 PM

A strong case can be made for reversing some precedents but no case can be made for decisions that are contrary to the explicit wording of the constitution!

#39 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

The constitution explicitly says insurrectionists can't run for president. Yet one did and the constitution did nothing to stop it.

The constitution is worthless now. The law is whatever the dictator wants.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-10-01 02:13 PM

The constitution is worthless now. The law is whatever the dictator wants.

Yup. The simple change in thinking that the Trump administration demonstrates is that the Constitution and our form of government only works/survives if people participate in good faith.

The system really has zero ability to deal with people who don't participate in good faith. And we're seeing that now.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2025-10-01 03:18 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

'No Kings' Protests (50 comments)

Look at What Trump Did to ACA Premiums in Idaho (43 comments)

Millions March Against Trump Nationwide (31 comments)

Karoline Leavitt's 'deplorables' Moment (23 comments)

Trump Frees George Santos (23 comments)

No Kings Day (20 comments)

Western Executives Shaken After Visiting China (14 comments)

Team Trump Says Food Stamp Funding to Dry Up in Two Weeks (13 comments)

Trump Comes Up with Idea for Ending Russia-Ukraine War (12 comments)

DHS Buys 2 Private Planes for Kristi Noem Costing $200M (10 comments)