80

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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

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.

What?

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago

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."

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago

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 7 points 1 week ago

And besides, the train driver does not have any control over the route the train will take.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

An orangutan is driving the train and apparently you're cool with that.

[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

There's pressure valves going off all over the place, and he's fixing it by shovelling in more coal.

[-] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 30 points 1 week ago

"Left wing activist judges! Activist judges! Activist judges! The left! The left wing activist judges!"

... fucking projection ass hypocrites. Always.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 10 points 1 week ago

Legislating from the bench!!!

[-] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago

arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,”

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 4 points 1 week ago

Yes, but on the other hand: he got his and fuck yours.

[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Even the actual gospel isn't gospel to these demons.

[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

Is he admitting this is how he writes his opinions?

[-] forrgott@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago

It's also meaningless, in the sense that it describes the entirety of society.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Going to flight school before piloting a 737 full of passengers is just a social construct, brah.

[-] forrgott@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Thank you for illustrating the definition of thought terminating cliche. That's like, my entire point.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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 3 points 1 week ago

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 3 points 1 week ago

Petition to make every fediverse comment require narration so that sarcasm can be easily detected.

[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Lmao orangutan is a particularly apt metaphor

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 6 points 1 week ago
[-] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

These people are the real “Satanists”. They believe in a will to power and nothing else.

[-] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

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 2 points 1 week ago

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”.

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

"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 3 points 1 week ago

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.

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 4 points 1 week ago

I mean, it's not stupid, it's intentional obtuseness in service to an ideology.

There is definitely some of that, probably even mostly that, but you'll never convince me Sam Alito is even a middling intellect

[-] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I don't care what his bullshit reasons are

[-] pinheadednightmare@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

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 3 points 1 week ago

Not just him don't forget Roberts.

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

[-] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 week ago
[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

*His head needs to be removed.

Brought to you by the guillotine gang.

[-] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 week ago

I’m a fan of burning at the stake, but I won’t turn down beheading.

[-] watson387@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago
[-] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 week ago

I suppose we could warm them up on the stake and then finish it on the guillotine

[-] omgboom@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

"Because I was paid to"

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

isclarencethomasdeadyet

[-] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

BUT this DOESNT APply to Their Rulings! THEIR rulings ARE Gospel!

[-] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

The bible is something somebody dreamt up and others went along with. God doesn't write.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

If Clarence is sentenced at Nuremberg, I suggest that it should be a drawing and quartering by his motorcoach fleet.

The right has always been hypocrites. Now they are so blatant they can’t even coherently argue their points. It’s just corruption. Pure and simple. The constitution and precedent only ever mattered when it was advantageous to them / their bribers.

[-] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

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 1 points 1 week ago

There is an orangutan driving the train. His name is Trump.

this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
80 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25940 readers
955 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS