Ann Althouse quotes the following from a WaPo piece that provides an interesting contrast between Scalia and Thomas:
Scalia told [Ken Foskett, the author of "Judging Thomas: The Life and Times of Clarence Thomas,"] that Thomas “doesn’t believe in stare decisis, period.” Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that “if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let’s get it right. I wouldn’t do that.”
This is a most interesting distinction between the judicial philosophies of these two Justices, who are often considered clones of each other. Indeed,
I must confess, while I would argue that Justices ought not seek to reverse prior Court decisions for personal ideological reasons, there are times when a prior Court has made a mistake. I think, for example, that the logic used in Raich that derived from Wickard is strained, to say the very least (indeed, it strikes me as ludicrious and a remarkable extension of Congressional power).
On a political level, it might behoove many on th Democratic side of the aisle to note that it is often the case that it is the conservative who is more likely to adhere to stare decisis. And they should especially pay attention to that fact should Scalia be tapped for Chief–and for similar reasons Thomas would possibly start a bigger fight were he tapped for Chief:
Scalia is fiercely conservative, but by and large he judges within the parameters of the rules laid down by predecessors. Thomas rarely appears to feel so confined.
June 10th, 2024 at 9:40 am
Steven,
Interesting and true. Read Krauthammer today about the same issue.
June 10th, 2024 at 9:50 am
[...] rest to the legally-minded here: what should be more important to conservative justices: stare decisis or originalism? (i.e., its Thomas v. Scalia, at east in re: Raich. Discuss.
[...]