Hey, He's Honest

[billroper]

Although he's frequently maligned, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas can apparently recognize muddled reasoning when he sees it. In this dissent in the case of Oregon's assisted suicide law, he calls the majority on the inconsistency of their opinion with the previous session's decision on California's medical marijuana law.

(Thomas was in favor of allowing medical marijuana, along with Rehnquist and O'Connor. Scalia and O'Connor's positions were consistent -- he voted in favor of the restrictions in both cases, she voted against them. Thomas appears to have dissented in this decision simply so he could call out the majority for ignoring their own precedent.)

Update: Just so that my position is sufficiently clear, I agree with O'Connor in each case.

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

If he recognizes it, why does he do it too? I'm not impressed.

B

[billroper]

What did you have in mind?

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Um, nothing. I was responding to your comment.

B

[madfilkentist]

So he's fighting inconsistency by being inconsistent himself?

[billroper]

Apparently so. In this case, I guess, respecting the doctrine of stare decisis...

(The previous decision being only a year old, one can argue that it should have some precedential value. And he did.)

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

This just underscores why I think that stare decisis is over-respected. Bad past decisions (in which category I put the medical marijuana case) should not bind the Court in future cases. I wish we could have a Court populated with justices who would protect people's rights based on the belief that it was the right thing to do, supported by reading the Tenth Amendment as protecting the right of the people to do stuff rather than the right of the states to stop them, rather than depending on stare decisis to keep ideologe judges appointed by ideologue Presidents from legislating their peculiar morality. Unfortunately, the only thing standing between us and "If This Goes On..." now seems to be stare decisis.

[madfilkentist]

I agree on that. If personally possessing something wasn't interstate commerce last year, it isn't interstate commerce this year, no matter what five judges say.

[billroper]

Yes, although it apparently was interstate commerce last year, but isn't this year.

[madfilkentist]

What I was trying to say was pre-Raich and post-Raich. Sorry I wasn't quite clear.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Vehemently agreed, especially this part:
Unfortunately, the only thing standing between us and "If This Goes On..." now seems to be stare decisis.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

Substantial respect for stare decisis is essential for a functioning society. Without it you never know if what was allowed yesterday is still allowed today. Previous decisions should only be overturned after very careful consideration. It really wouldn't be going to far to require a 6-3 or maybe even a 7-2 decision to overturn a previous one.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Clarence isn't totally incompetent; ruled right on Tasini v. Times, frex, unlike Stevens and Breyer.