In a rare public appearance, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas hinted that the nation’s highest court may very well be considering tearing up legal precedents that have been in effect for decades, and some nearly a century old.
Speaking Thursday at the Catholic University Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should rethink the way law is interpreted as it relates to stare decisis, the legal doctrine that suggests courts should follow legal precedent, or prior decisions – when making rulings on similar legal matters.
"At some point we need to think about what we're doing with stare decisis," Thomas said, according to a Saturday report from ABC News. "And it's not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say 'stare decisis' and not think, turn off the brain, right?"
The Supreme Court is poised to reconvene at the beginning of October for its next term next, and may have several cases reach its desk that challenge longstanding legal precedents.
The Court is considering reviewing a lower court’s decision related to Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling that permitted same-sex marriages. It’s also set to revisit a case challenging the 90-year precedent that restricts the power of the president to indiscriminately terminate federal agency staff, as well as a case that established rules around ethnicity as it relates to redistricting.
"We never go to the front [to] see who's driving the train, where it [is] 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," Thomas said.
"I don't think that I have the gospel, 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."