Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Buddyzbuddy

(1,561 posts)

5. Doesn't that mean he just made the Supreme Court

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Sep 27, 2025, 06:49 PM

Yesterday

a legislative body? By saying the Court can ignore precedent and just decide to make laws from the bench. That's legislating not interpreting. How do 6 people arbitrarily decide, no, that previous majority didn't know what they were talking about, we're going to "ignore history" and start from scratch. Sound familiar?
The decision by these 6 is predetermined so they have to create a justification for their "decision". Since overturning Roe v. Wade it's getting easier for them to ignore precedent and make outlandish decisions. They answer to nobody, for now.

They have given the Presidency full immunity and by extension, they've given this rogue court the same immunity.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

4 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Talitha Varaddem Bayard yankee87

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Not 'the gospel.' Ahead of Supreme Court term, Clarence Thomas weighs in on precedent [View all] BumRushDaShow Yesterday OP

How about "stare decisis" ruling on the real meaning of the 2nd amendment? Opps. forgot that is the whole basis of LiberalArkie Yesterday #1

Just forget elleng Yesterday #3

He's setting the precedent otchmoson Yesterday #2

That's exactly what I thought when I first read the headline! slightlv 23 hrs ago #12

Marriage for our LGBTQ citizens yankee87 Yesterday #4

And hello anti-miscegenation laws again (Loving v. Virginia) BumRushDaShow Yesterday #8

Doesn't that mean he just made the Supreme Court Buddyzbuddy Yesterday #5

WHEN we take back our country, slightlv 23 hrs ago #13

Absolutely Buddyzbuddy 21 hrs ago #19

Even the gospel isn't the gospel to that crudball Marthe48 Yesterday #6

Well they aren't even thinking Raven123 Yesterday #7

He means to give trump everything he ever dreamed of, Bayard Yesterday #9

Meaning Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Yesterday #10

How's the gratuities and tips coming in Thomas ? republianmushroom Yesterday #11

The kind the tax breaks were REALLY meant for, not a couple bucks for a waitress ;) n/t Cheezoholic 23 hrs ago #16

Turn off the brain? Gimpyknee 23 hrs ago #14

Wai-wai-wait! They're not quoting His Honour properly (with your kind indulgence) AHEM!!... Montauk6 23 hrs ago #15

What about Virginia vs. Loving, Clarence? QED 22 hrs ago #17

Loving, schmuving otchmoson 14 hrs ago #21

Right-wingers have wanted to revese the decisions that legalized the New Deal, Social Security, etc.... JHB 22 hrs ago #18

Wonder what his "tip" was for saying that? rurallib 15 hrs ago #20

Remember those words you just used, you corrupt, treasonous piece of shit. Scalded Nun 9 hrs ago #22