Karl Auerbach on Nostr: Ol' Clarence T. says that prior SCOTUS decisions are not binding, that they are ...

Ol' Clarence T. says that prior SCOTUS decisions are not binding, that they are precedent that is not controlling.

OK.

That effectively means that no SCOTUS decision is actually final, that all SCOTUS decisions are merely provisional and may be silently reversed by simply refusing to acknowledge that that case has to be honored as binding precedent.

This, in turn, means that SCOTUS never really is finished with a case, even after it renders a decision.

That, in turn, means that SCOTUS has the power - and there is nothing in our Constitution that denies this power - to pick up an older case & overturn it by issuing a new decision to replace the initial decision.

Just as El Cheeto wiped out Biden's Executive Orders, a new panel on SCOTUS could quickly wipe out the egregious cases of the Roberts/Cheeto era.

Of course this means the end of law as a predictable framework. But have we not already reached a place where what is law and what it means has become the whim of the President?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/28/clarance-thomas-precedence-supreme-court-docket