Clarence Thomas Said Two Words That Will Change the Supreme Court Forever

We Report The Genuine News And Circumstances Occurring The World Over.

When Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Democrats pulled every dirty trick in the book to stop him.

They knew what would happen if conservatives secured a majority on the Supreme Court.

And now Clarence Thomas faces this decision that will change the Supreme Court forever.

This is the time of year when the Supreme Court begins rolling out its major decisions.

One case which did not grab headlines at the time – FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT – concerned a challenge to the 1979 Nevada v. Hall case which held that the Constitution did not prevent individuals from suing one state in another state’s courts.

The Supreme Court ruled under the principle of “stare decisis” which means “let the decision stand.”

This is not a hard and fast rule.

Supreme Court precedents are overturned.

But the court does not go back on its own judgment unless it finds a compelling reason.

And in this case, Thomas wrote in his opinion that the previous Supreme Court decision is “contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the States that ratified the Constitution. Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent.”

This opinion fired off alarm bells in the left-wing legal community.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer warned that this decision meant any previous precedent was no longer safe.

Breyer whined that it was “dangerous to overrule a decision only because five Members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.”

Breyer continued, “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.”

There was only one case Breyer had in mind—Roe v. Wade.

Since that horrific case was wrongly decided in 1973, about one million innocent babies have been killed every year in abortion clinics around America.

And in every Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Democrat Senators have demanded to know if conservative judicial nominees will “respect precedent.”

What they really want is to get the nominees on record pledging never to overturn Roe v Wade.

For appeals court nominees, this answer is easy.

They have to respect precedent.

Circuit Court judges cannot throw out previous Supreme Court decisions.

They must abide by them.

So Democrats main concerns is when filling Supreme Court seats.

And in FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT, Justice Thomas used the two magic words – “erroneous precedent” – that signaled that the five-member conservative majority will not think twice about correcting past wrongs.

That’s why this little-publicized case has become so important.

Thomas laid down a marker to show that the court has the ability to change its mind on an issue.

For practical purposes, the Supreme Court generally likes to move in incremental phases.

Big sweeping changes generates enormous push back.

So Justice Thomas’ remarks suggest that the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court could be easing their way into gutting – and effectively eliminating – Roe v Wade altogether by first establishing that it is not bound to “erroneous precedents.”

Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Community Guidelines Disclaimer: The points of view and purpose of this video is not to bully or harass anybody, but rather share that opinion and thoughts with other like-minded individuals curious about the subject.

Read More/Source/Credit/Fair Use:

Please Help Me To 1,000,000 Sub : American Patriot : SUB TO BACKUP CHANNEL HERE :

Was originally published at:


New Comment
New Comment
New Comment