Bloomberg Law Justice Thomas Cautions Against Following Precedent
Oct 1, 2025
David Super, a Georgetown Law constitutional law professor, delves into Justice Clarence Thomas's controversial views on precedent and stare decisis, comparing them to a train that can be derailed. He critiques Thomas's dismissal of past justices, emphasizing the risks to significant rulings like Obergefell. Healthcare attorney Harry Nelson weighs in on the implications of recent FDA actions regarding Tylenol and the challenges of changing drug labels, highlighting the tension between science and politics in public health policy.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Precedent Is The Court's Anchor
- David Super says Justice Thomas's remarks downplaying precedent were remarkable and condescending toward past justices.
- Super argues precedent (stare decisis) is central to restraining judges and preserving the rule of law.
Originalism Should Favor Precedent
- Super finds it odd that an originalist like Thomas rejects stare decisis since common law tradition binds courts to precedent.
- He stresses originalism historically relied on precedent stretching back centuries.
Counting Reversals Hides Their Impact
- Super views the Roberts Court as pursuing a conservative agenda and overturning significant precedents, not merely counting reversals.
- He warns counting overturned cases masks the importance of sweeping constitutional changes like Dobbs.