this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
41 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2504 readers
167 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Settled legal precedent in the US is not “gospel” and in some instances may have been “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with”, the US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas has said.

Thomas – part of the conservative supermajority that has taken hold of the supreme court over Donald Trump’s two presidencies – delivered those comments Thursday at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law in Washington DC, ABC News and other outlets reported. His remarks preceded the nine-month term that the supreme court is scheduled to begin on 6 October.

“I don’t think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel,” Thomas said during the rare public appearance, invoking a term which in a religious context is often used to refer to the word of God. “And I do give perspective to the precedent. But … the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

Among the various cases Thomas and his colleagues are expected to weigh in on is a request to overturn the 2015 Obergefell supreme court decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. Other cases being mulled by the supreme court for its 2025-2026 term involve tariffs, trans rights, campaign finance law, religious rights and capital punishment.

Pretty sure everyone had this on their bingo cards.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] megopie@beehaw.org 14 points 1 day ago

Lmao, like how the supreme courts right to declare laws unconstitutional is just a precedent set by the Supreme Court.

Nothing in the constitution enumerates their ability to shoot down laws, it just says “a Supreme Court shall be established”

Maybe shut the fuck up about throwing out past precedent you don’t like, given that precedent is the only reason you get a say on the matter.

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

he's about to do some serious fuck shit even by his standards

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yup, this is his signaling to ease the coming blow.

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

About what evil shit they're gonna do?

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

sure ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯ let's get all Camu absurd with it. Maybe then whatever it is will be less psychicaly damaging than if he does just like declare the president is immune to some charge that's likely to come up. or repeals protections of some basic human right or other.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They're going to declare that the US revolution was leftist terrorism, is illegitimate, and Trump is the legitimate heir to the British crown so he has authority over Britain at the same time as being King of the US.

And demand Google Maps rename Britain and the US to The United Kingdom of America.

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

lel. okay I think he's going to repeal thirteenth amendment on the grounds that it's the individual states rights to determine how they treat black people

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I thought you said we were doing absurd ones...

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 2 points 19 hours ago

that was my attempt at being absurd 😭 what even is this reality?

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Among the various cases Thomas and his colleagues are expected to weigh in on is a request to overturn the 2015 Obergefell supreme court decision that legalized marriage for same-sex couples nationwide.

I feel like this is one thing that might actually motivate a larger portion of the population to protest.

Because I cant imagine what else it would take.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 20 points 1 day ago

That's the great thing about a stacked court. They don't have constituents to listen to, and their solution to protests has of late been putting up a bigger fence around the building.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Thankfully getting rid of same-sex marriage isn't as simple as reversing the precedent. They'd need to rule that same-sex marriage is somehow unconstitutional. Which I'm sure they'll try ofc.

[–] Midnitte@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago

I'm sure the plan is to overturn precedent and have the ruling in such a way that it's up to the states

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

I'm sure after same sex marriage gets torn down they'll go after interracial marriage next. They're slowly peeling back all the good layers of this country until we get back to the old rotten core of slavery and segregation underneath.

[–] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hey Americans, have you tried shooting the fascists?

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most people aren't there yet. It takes a massive number of truly disaffected people to spark a real resistance. It also requires known leaders willing to head it up and organize, otherwise it's just disjointed actions that can't be capitalized on.

This is why the whole "hey 2A people, where you at" thing is so annoying; the Revolutionary War had leaders and organization from the get-go, because well-known figures were willing to step up and say, "bring your weapons, organize here". And it was people with their personal arms at first, until they seized armories.

Maybe we'll get there, hopefully not, but most people are still working their jobs and getting Starbucks and going to Target, and you don't just collectively go from that to shoosting directly. There's a lot of in-between.

[–] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

2a people aren’t who they think they are.

Saying “hey 2a” is pointing out they are hypocrites. Finding “hey 2a” annoying is disliking when people point out hypocrisy.

Personally, I am partial to people who pointed out hypocrisy.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Except it's not hypocritical, because none of the pro-2A people, even the shitty ones, claim that the point is to immediately and unilaterally and without any coordination attack the government, and there's no claimed line in the sand that has been crossed that they have obliged themselves to.

And the people making this accusation are doing it because they're anti-2A, not because they actually want to see it utilized appropriately. People making this argument always pretend that only the right is pro-2A, when it's people like Huey P. Newton and Ida Wells and Harriet Tubman and John Brown (who were all "2A people") who prove why it's actually necessary, not the Cliven Bundys.

[–] chiocciola@lemmy.cafe 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think you need to spend more time on that first paragraph

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If you have specific questions, I'm perfectly happy to expound.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Precedent only when we feel like it

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

So nothing's changed?