Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Clarence Thomas, Assistant Judge Interesting comment This weekend is about holding a record in court. Thomas after condemning the recent revelation of the draft vote that Roe v. Wade calls it a “betrayal”, rejecting the principle. Staring at the decision, Or respect for history. This was one of the main reasons for keeping Roe. However, Thomas surprised many by ignoring this principle as the last line of defense for those who have no argument for merit.

“I always say that when someone uses staring to make a decision, it means they are out of the question,” Thomas told the audience. Now they just wave the white flag. “And I just keep going.”

This comment quickly lit up the lines of law professors, including my mailbox. I have long questioned the weight given to constitutional cases. If the judge does not believe that the right to abortion is enshrined in the constitution, I do not believe that this principle will force him to vote to preserve that wrong record.

The Court has long “accepted the doctrine of precedent, according to which the court must comply with previous judicial decisions in the event of a recurrence of the same cases in litigation.” To that end, before dismissing it as a binding record, he insisted on “a specific reason more than the belief that the previous case was wrongly decided.” Planned Parents Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833, 864 (1992). This includes a number of factors that need to be weighed, including reliance on background.

Judge Thomas had previously expressed doubts about this approach. that in Gamble v. United States, He wrote an agreement that included this piece:

In my view, if the court is confronted with a decision that is manifestly wrong – that is, a decision that is not a permissible interpretation of the text – the court should correct the mistake, regardless of whether other factors support the annulment of the record. Federal courts may (but do not have to) adhere to a wrong decision as a precedent, but only when traditional means of legal interpretation show that the previous decision adopted a permissible interpretation of the text of the law. In contrast, a judicial decision is clearly flawed as a rule of law, and adherence to it both ignores the supremacy of the constitution and perpetuates the usurpation of the legislature.

This should not be considered a heretical or radical position.

As I have Mentioned earlier, Judges swear to uphold the constitution and interpret the law as “credible and impartial”. It is strange to argue that they should vote for an interpretation of the constitution that they think is wrong and baseless, just to preserve the record. If this view had prevailed in the past, Brown would have opposed the board’s “separate but equal” racist rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson supported. When it comes to constitutional rights, judges must interpret the constitution honestly.

In fact, I do not believe for a moment that if Dobbs is abolished, liberal judges will hesitate for a year, ten years, or 100 years as wrongly decided.

There may be more history of legal interpretations (because Congress can deal with misinterpretations or contradictions). But in interpreting the constitution, judges keep their oaths.Support and defend the US ConstitutionThe astonishing decision may protect the court as an institution from public criticism, but it should not neglect the task of interpreting the constitution correctly and honestly.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.