In a candid discussion at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his skepticism about blindly following legal precedents that don't make sense. Known for his conservative and originalist views, Thomas didn't hold back in criticizing what he sees as the Court's sometimes illogical adherence to established rulings.

"Well if I find it doesn’t make any sense … I think we should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis," Thomas stated, emphasizing the need for practicality and sense in legal decisions. His remarks came during a session where he was asked how he integrates the principle of stare decisis, which is the legal doctrine of respecting precedents, with his originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution.

Thomas further argued that not all established precedents deserve to be upheld, especially if they are "totally stupid." He explained, "if [it’s] totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it’s decided." This stark dismissal of following precedent for precedent’s sake underscores his belief that each case should stand on its own merits rather than just adhering to past decisions.

Adding a colorful analogy to his critique, Justice Thomas likened the Supreme Court's practice to a train blindly being added to without consideration of its direction: “We never go to the front to see where it’s going. You could go up to the engine room and find that it’s an orangutan driving. And you’re going to follow that? I think we owe our fellow citizens more than that.” This metaphor highlights his concern that following precedent without scrutiny is like trusting a train driven by an orangutan; it’s senseless and irresponsible.

Thomas's comments reflect a deeper philosophical divide within the Supreme Court and among the judiciary at large, about the role and power of precedent in shaping American law. His willingness to challenge and potentially overturn "stupid" precedents could signal significant shifts in legal interpretations in future cases.

As these debates continue to unfold, it is clear that Justice Thomas remains a pivotal figure in the ongoing conversation about the balance between tradition and common sense in the highest court of the United States. His remarks invite both legal scholars and the general public to reconsider how our laws are made and followed, urging a closer look at the rationale behind judicial decisions rather than mere deference to history.