A Dissenting Opinion, a Contradiction, and Questions About Consistency

A Contradiction in Terms?

In a recent dissenting opinion, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized a lower federal court for disregarding legal precedent. Ironically, this criticism comes from the same justice who, just a year prior, played a key role in overturning Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that had stood for nearly half a century.

The case in question involved David Smith, who was convicted and jailed for attempted murder. Smith's lawyers argued that his identification by the victim was influenced by police, potentially leading to a wrongful conviction. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Smith, requiring the government to prove a valid reason for his continued imprisonment.

In his dissent, Thomas argued that the Sixth Circuit had erred by failing to adhere to Supreme Court precedent on how to apply the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). He claimed that the appeals court should not have made its own evaluation of the identification issue, but rather should have examined the original ruling for consistency with Supreme Court precedent.

However, Thomas's emphasis on precedent seems to contradict his own actions in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case. In that case, Thomas and the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that it had been established precedent for nearly 50 years.

The majority opinion in Dobbs, written by Justice Samuel Alito, stated that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and that no such right is implicitly protected. This directly contradicted the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade, which had recognized a constitutional right to abortion based on the right to privacy.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade had immediate and significant consequences, leading to abortion bans in more than 20 states. This raises questions about the consistency of Justice Thomas's approach to legal precedent, particularly when it comes to issues with such profound social and political implications.