![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hey, He's Honest
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.
(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.