Trey Gowdy helped uncover Hillary Clinton’s private email server. There isn’t much corruption in Washington…Read More →
Donald Trump is facing opposition from every angle in his re-election campaign.
But the biggest threat may be right under his very nose.
Clarence Thomas just called out the one man that is the biggest threat to Trump’s re-election.
As Great American Daily reports:
Chief Justice John Roberts once again betrayed conservatives.
In the June Medical Services, LLC v Russo case, Roberts sided with the court’s four liberals in striking down a Louisiana law requiring doctors that performed abortions to have hospital emergency room admitting privileges.
Roberts claimed he had to vote to strike down the law citing the principle of stare decisis – let the decision stand – because four years ago the Supreme Court nixed a similar law in Texas where Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the deciding vote.
“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents,” Roberts wrote.
Critics fumed because in that Texas case, Roberts voted to uphold the Texas law, but now the Chief Justice switched his vote to give the left a major win.
Clarence Thomas called out Roberts for being weak and lacking principles in his must-read dissent.
Thomas blasted the so-called “right to an abortion” as a legal fiction that the Supreme Court made up out of thin air in the disastrously decided 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
“But today’s decision is wrong for a far simpler reason: The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As the origins of this jurisprudence readily demonstrate, the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone,” Thomas began.
Thomas ripped Roberts by claiming precedent tied his hands when according to Thomas, bad precedent should always be overturned.
“The Court’s current ‘formulation of the stare decisis standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III,’ which requires us to faithfully interpret the Constitution. Gamble, 587 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2). Rather, when our prior decisions clearly conflict with the text of the Constitution, we are required to ‘privilege [the] text over our own precedents,’” Thomas wrote in his dissent.