Clarence Thomas UNLEASHES Radical Court Philosophy – Rare Public Attack

Building with columns and statues in front of entrance.

America’s most conservative Supreme Court justice just declared war on the legal principle that has kept our laws stable for centuries, and his reasoning might shock you.

Story Snapshot

Justice Clarence Thomas publicly attacked the doctrine of stare decisis, calling precedents “not the gospel”
He compared following established law to riding a train driven by an “orangutan” without knowing the destination
Thomas argues many precedents were simply “dreamt up” and accepted without proper scrutiny
His remarks come as the Court prepares to overturn major decisions on voting rights, agency power, and potentially same-sex marriage

The Train Wreck Analogy That Stunned Legal Experts

Speaking at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, Justice Thomas delivered perhaps his most provocative critique of legal precedent to date. His train metaphor wasn’t just colorful language—it revealed a fundamental philosophy that could reshape American jurisprudence. Thomas suggested that blindly following precedent is like boarding a train without questioning who’s driving or where it’s headed, potentially with disastrous results.

This wasn’t merely academic theorizing. Thomas spoke with the authority of someone preparing to act on his convictions, knowing full well that the upcoming Supreme Court term includes cases targeting foundational precedents that have governed American law for decades.

Read This: "Clarence Thomas Gives Bonkers Reason for SCOTUS to Tear Up Settled Laws" https://t.co/cy1fH2ja28

— Calvin Kleinmann (@CKlein5852) September 28, 2025

Why Thomas Believes Precedent Has Gone Off the Rails

Thomas’s critique goes deeper than constitutional theory. He argues that too many current laws rest on shaky foundations—decisions that were “dreamt up” by previous courts and accepted without sufficient constitutional grounding. His originalist philosophy demands that laws trace their authority directly to the Constitution’s text and original meaning, not judicial creativity.

The justice’s timing is no coincidence. The Court’s docket includes cases that could dismantle federal agency independence, weaken voting rights protections, and potentially overturn marriage equality. Thomas has previously signaled his willingness to reconsider landmark decisions protecting contraception access, same-sex relationships, and marriage rights—all rooted in substantive due process doctrine he considers constitutionally illegitimate.

The High-Stakes Cases That Could Transform America

Three major areas of settled law now face potential upheaval under Thomas’s approach. Federal agency independence hangs in the balance as the Court considers overturning Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which protects agencies like the FTC from political interference. Justice Elena Kagan has already warned that the conservative majority appears eager to strip these protections, fundamentally altering how government operates.

Voting rights face similar threats through challenges to Thornburg v. Gingles, which has protected minority voting power for decades. Perhaps most controversially, the Court has received petitions to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Thomas’s 2022 concurrence in Dobbs explicitly called for reconsidering these precedents, suggesting his recent remarks aren’t mere theoretical musings.

The Conservative Revolution Thomas Envisions

Thomas’s approach represents a seismic shift from traditional conservative judicial philosophy. Even conservative justices historically respected precedent as essential for legal stability and public confidence in the courts. Thomas now argues that correcting constitutional errors takes precedence over preserving settled expectations, regardless of the social and economic disruption that follows.

His alliance with Justice Samuel Alito has proven remarkably effective—the two agree in 97% of cases and have successfully moved the Court toward their shared vision of constitutional interpretation. With a solid conservative majority, Thomas possesses the votes to implement his precedent-skeptical approach across multiple areas of law, potentially unwinding decades of legal development in rapid succession.