Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as critical voice of reason on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, it wasn’t a surprise when he delivered a much-needed dose of reality about the high court’s constitutional role during a rare public appearance late last week.
Speaking at the Catholic University Law School, the current court’s longest-serving member reportedly discussed the Supreme Court’s overturning of longstanding precedents in several of its recent decisions. He specifically tackled the subject of stare decisis, arguing that the high court should not blindly follow past precedents without considering whether those decisions adhere to the Constitution.
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis,” Thomas said in reference to the legal doctrine of abiding by past decisions. “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?”
As described by Courthouse News, Thomas went on to characterize adherence to stare decisis as “a series of cars on a long train,” wherein new SCOTUS cases “become additional cars, following the train wherever it’s going.” The H.W. Bush appointee notably said, “We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train or where it is going, and you could go up there to the engine room and find out it’s an orangutan.”
Thomas’ most impactful remarks, however, centered on the Supreme Court’s obligation to the rule of law. While acknowledging the fallibility of judges, the justice noted that regardless of what precedent is established, that precedent must abide by America’s founding document and the country’s “legal tradition.”
“I don’t think that I have the gospel,” Thomas said, “that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, and I do give perspective to the precedent. But it should — 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.”
In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to longstanding precedents that lacked adherence to the Constitution and existing statutes — the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Chevron deference being among them. Such decisions have unsurprisingly angered American leftists, who had for decades relied upon the court to enshrine their radical agenda into law via legally dubious rulings.
Yet, for all their outrage, the left’s antagonism toward SCOTUS doesn’t make Thomas’ points any less true. In fact, his analysis of stare decisis is exactly the view every justice should hold when examining important legal questions before the court.
Take, for example, the Supreme Court’s 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, in which a majority of justices upheld state-enforced racial segregation under the guise of “separate but equal.” Of course, the decision was completely at odds with the 14th Amendment and represented a gross infringement upon the constitutional rights of black Americans.
Fortunately, that precedent was eventually overturned in the high court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling. But the fact remains that had the court adopted the view of strict proponents of stare decisis — that longstanding precedent cannot be reexamined — the horrific “separate but equal” doctrine would have been allowed to stand.
As Thomas so eloquently demonstrated, it is not the job of judges or justices to abide by wrong precedent, but by the Constitution and existing law. And that means interpreting these documents in line with their original meanings and not inventing new provisions out of thin air through unsound legal arguments.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood