On "stare decisis"

Thomas and Breyer’s ‘Stare’ Contest - Their sharp disagreement about precedent reflects different worldviews that go far beyond abortion.


Beginning with the Warren Court in the 1950s, bold and audacious justices began making up law out of the Constitution’s “emanations, formed by penumbras”—literally, gas and shadows. As Justice Thomas has objected, the court invented rights that sharply curtailed the traditional order-keeping authority of police and teachers, making streets, schools, and housing projects in poor neighborhoods dangerous, and depriving mostly minority citizens of the first civil right—to be safe. The justices have even trampled the Bill of Rights, sanctioning campaign-finance laws that curtail the political speech at the core of First Amendment protections.
Comment: Important read. Ask yourself - should Dred Scott v. Sandford have stood? Then consider Roe v. Wade.

1 comment:

  1. Amen. I've wondered for a long time why ludicrous decisions like Roe ought to stick around, and quite frankly, it seems that there is a parallel between Thomas' view and Sola Scriptura; if the authority lies in the Constitution/Scripture, we can correct our mistakes. If we must let the decision stand, then we end up with Roe/Magisterium.

    And in that light, it's somewhat unnerving that most of our justices are Catholic, including Thomas, and three of the others are Jewish--OK, nominally Jewish, but they also have a strong tradition called the Talmuds. Recovering Constitutional government is going to be tough.


Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic