Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights | The Hill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Harper Neidig - 06/24/22 11:08 AM ET
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution's Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.
Thomas wrote, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
Since Justice Samuel Alito's draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.
The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
While Thomas's comments outline the worst-case scenario for the majority's liberal critics, it's unclear whether the other conservative justices are willing to go as far as the court's most senior member.
Alito stressed in the majority opinion that his reasoning applies only to abortion and rejected any assertions that the rationale in Dobbs could extend to Griswold, Lawrence or Obergefell.
"Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," Alito wrote.
The three members of the court's liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — rejected that assurance in their dissent, saying the majority's willingness to overturn the landmark decades-old decision leaves other precedents vulnerable.
"And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work," the three liberals wrote. "The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions."
"The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, 'there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'" the justices added. "So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."
— Updated at 11:44 a.m.
Tags Abortion abortion rights Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas LGBT rights Roe v. Wade Samuel Alito Supreme Court
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
Blessed Be United States of Gilead Under His Eye!
They have pushed this country back 50 years this week, and they're just beginning. If I were a woman, non-heterosexual, or non-white, I'd be terrified of what's to come next.
For 50 years the gop said it wouldn't happen!
Anyone that believed that wasn’t paying attention.
“If I were a woman,”
woman? Ohh, you mean birthing unit. Ok, i got it now.
I didn't believe them but I was assured over and over that Roe, "Was settled precedent".
All SCOTUS opinions are settled law until they aren’t. It really only impacts everyone below the Court. The Court can do what it likes with precedent.
If you understood the law, then you would realize there isn't anything that is settled precedent... Roe itself overturned in some cases 250 years of settled legal precedent... 50 years, that's nothing in the law...
Precedent is what the Supreme Courts says it is, they create it, they can change it to whatever they want it to be and they can abolish it, anytime they choose... The only requirement is to back it up with sound legal reasoning...
They didn't do away with abortion, they did away with the legal reasoning behind the courts ruling in the Roe case, that one creating a right that had never existed before...
The fact that it kicked abortion law back to the states is the minor issue here...
The BIG thing it does do, is calls into question every decision of the federal courts that was based upon that "created" right...
More litigation is coming it might take decades for the true ramifications of this decision to land on the Supreme Court's desks, but it is coming...
And it is 50 years overdue... Roe didn't decide the issue of abortion what it did do was allow something that should have been allowed in the first place, It also clearly delineated the sides of the issue... Because of that today, most people see the validity of the need to have safe abortion procedures, I think 80+% of the population does.... The real question is do we need "Blanket" authority for abortion of any type on demand for any reason? and the clear answer is no we don't... (and the citizenry is split 50/50 on that issue)
In that respect Roe served it's purpose, it ended the back alley "Coat Hanger" abortion industry and brought the issue and needs out in the open and rectified the worst of it...
At this point, it has outlived it's usefulness as far as abortion goes. Abortion services are never going to go away and they shouldn't, but it is incumbent for each and every community to decide such for themselves.... That is what the Constitution intended...
The main problem, is the rest of the stuff that has been built upon the right to privacy holding that has been extinguished has been used in many instances as a shortcut to legislate things from the bench that were never intended to be legislated by a court...
Each and every one of those decisions will eventually be revisited....
THAT'S the real big deal here...
What are those issues? just wait, you will hear them in the comments as each and every issue group raises the fearmongering for their little "Rights" carve out...
This decision puts the local community back in charge of such issues...
My question?
Why does that scare so many?
And now is the time to invest in wire coat hanger manufacturers again.
Abortions are still legal.
[deleted]
Yeah Greg, fuck the poor people who can't afford to travel to where it will be legal.
That happens sometimes when it's a response to a "jerk" comment.
thomas is a scalia suppository with no place left to hide.
We'll let the NT jury decide which comments are insightful, yours or mine.
You have my vote, Buzz
Same here Buzz. Pay no mind to the usual nonsense from his non-contributory emissions.
LOL. If you can't figure it out for yourself, ask the one person who's been voting up your comments.
Far right wing fascists making any headway is very scary.
[Deleted]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-known-clarence-thomas-014028591.html
Hillary Clinton, who has known Clarence Thomas since law school, says he is a person of 'resentment, grievance, anger'
Clinton made her remarks on "CBS This Morning" in a discussion about Roe v. Wade.
She said he'd "signaled" to courts and state legislatures "to find cases, pass laws, get them up."
The former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton described Justice Clarence Thomas, whom she's known since they were at Yale Law School together in the '70s, as a "person of grievance."
"I went to law school with him. He's been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him," Clinton said Tuesday during an interview on "CBS This Morning" with Gayle King. "Resentment, grievance, anger," she added.
To those who would never admit it - how come Hillary is always right about these things????????????
See our PN regarding that Buzz
No. In certain states they are illegal now.
She certainly knows how that feels.
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Actually...he never said any such thing
Actually, he did say just that.
Link?
Well gee Greg, since you insisted unequivocally that Thomas didn't say that, you must have READ it already and done so through a link to his Concurrence. Check your history.
If you read Thomas' Concurrence, which I doubt, you would have to be blind to miss his call for overturning almost any rulings based on 'substantive due process'.
Bullshit. Here is what he said...........emphasis mine.
""In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
Show the class where "overturn" appeared in that.........................
Ah yes, activist courts have created a lot of "rights" through the decades. Judicial Review is within the purview of the Court.
So the court should reconsider whether married couples can use contraception, rule on exactly which sex acts couples can engage in and last but not least whether gays can marry. These things should be RECONSIDERED ?????
I wonder why Token Thomas never brought up Loving vs. Virginia?
In other words they were benevolent gestures whether or not they were derived from the Constitution.
You really need to go back and read the string of conversation
Actually the posit was this "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed"
And NO he didn't...............he simply stated "reconsider". Go bang your head somewhere else...................
Do you think these cases should be "revisited" ?
No but evidently he does due to they way they were adjudicated by the same "Principles"? I don't know and really don't care. To me, it would be a waste..........
You should care for the sake of your children and grandchildren.
I can't because it's obvious to anyone who actually read Thomas' Concurrence that my comment was based on the two sentences IMMEDIATELY AFTER what you quoted:
So Jim, take your bullshit to someone that will let you get away with it. I am NOT that person.
Unless you stopped reading Thomas' Concurrence after what you block quoted, you KNOW that is a lie.
Still no overturn. Sucks when someone plays your game back in your face doesn't it.
That's some childish shit right there Jim.
Overturning and overruling are used synonymously in the Dobbs ruling Jim. You should READ it and educate yourself. Or not.
I'm not playing a game, I am citing FACTS. It must suck not to be able to recognize them.
Honey you use that childish shit EVERY FUCKING DAY so spare me the bullshit indignation. It’s not a good look. And your history is out there for all to see.
First of all Jim, use my screen name. PERIOD, full stop.
No Jim, I rarely use the term childish and only for comments that are actually childish.
My characterization of your comment as childish is a critique of its value, NOT an expression of indignation.
What's not a good look is posting utterly non-responsive personal replies. Yet it's an MO some here rely on.
I'm good with standing by the public history of my comments Jim.
I'm not the one that runs to PM to hide failed arguments from other members.
It wasn't the term I was referring to the fact that you nitpick words and phrases as I did above to make what you feel is a cogent "argument". As said, sucks when someone uses your own tactics against you........
And what the hell is this..............
"I'm not the one that runs to PM to hide failed arguments from other members."
supposed to mean?
There are some members of this site who are just not worth spending time trying to talk with as they will not.
You're good at handing folks' their ass!
So, you admit that you comment was merely nitpicking as an avenue to use a 'tactic' against me.
Why not post an adult relevant comment instead Jim?
Oh, wait...
You haven't forgotten our private conversation have you Jim?
There are some members of this site that use the cowardly practice of talking ABOUT other members instead of talking TO other members.
Throughout the thread.
Well gee, how about you block quote from my comments that qualify as 'utterly non-responsive personal replies'. Perhaps I can clarify them for you.
There you have it folks, the sad moonwalk away from adulting and backing up allegations. Another member proves their lack of credibility for all to see.
Next.
Like going from claiming that "Dred Scott had NOTHING (capitalization in original) to do with 'substantive due process " to claiming it "abused the very core of substantive due process"
NO Sean. I replied to your bullshit 2 fucking days ago, which YOU failed to reply to.
Dragging it into another thread is bad form. But hey Sean, you be you.
which YOU failed to reply to.
Of course. What more needed to be said? Anyone who can read understands you blatantly contradicted yourself and were reduced to making the silly claim that a Supreme Court Justice isn't an authority on the Constitution. I was embarrassed for you at that point. There's no need for me to pile on when you've done that to yourself.
ragging it into another thread is bad form
For you to claim another member lacks credibility is bad form indeed.
That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
It's actually exactly the opposite as regards to 'utterly non-responsive personal replies' and who makes them.
Did you call Justice Marshall "Token Marshall"? He was the first African American justice on the SCOTUS so, in your mind does make him the original token?
I am compelled to point out: Justice Marshall is a civil rights icon. Justice Thomas is a some (conservative) icon. The distinctions matter, factually. Now, I step out of your discussion.
Yet here you are babbling about it in ANOTHER thread.
Nope. Your inability to understand it is YOUR problem Sean.
Again, I don't accept Thomas and authority on anything. Neither do the majority of the SC.
Fuck off Sean.
Yet here you are babbling in another thread.
Facts are NEVER bad form Sean.
Well, this is the whole thing, right here. He would overturn Griswold, and that would be far more devastating than just overturning Roe.
The idea that unenumerated rights can be found in the penumbra of enumerated rights somehow offends conservatives (allegedly). But I think their offense is feigned.
And it’s not just the “penumbra” aspect. It’s the whole idea that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, or that it protects substantive due process.
If you truly love liberty and you think this country was founded on it, I don’t understand how this could bother you. I think the reality is that socially conservative people want to be able to outlaw the liberty of others when they find their practices to be objectionable to them, personally. It’s the Puritan tradition at work. Their need to purify society far outweighs any belief in liberty.
The obvious answer is because it's subject to abuse. Substantive due process gave us Dread Scott and the "freedom of contract" cases that struck down labor laws that prevented workers from being forced to work 60 hour weeks. As Thomas said:
Substantive due process is effectively a license for justices to implement whatever policy they prefer. It has no textual basis in the 14th amendment. As we've seen, just throw in some metaphysical peans to "liberty" and the Court can do whatever it wants and claim "substantive due process". That's well and good if it's a policy you support, less so if it throws out a law setting a maximum number of hours people can work under a supposed "freedom to contract."
Of course, 8 of the current justices are fine with substantive due process. The other 5 in the Dobbs majority support the existence of unenumerated rights subject to the Glickman test.
So there is no danger of substantive due process being discarded anytime soon.
Thomas is full of shit.
Dred Scott had NOTHING to do with 'substantive due process' nor was Dred Scott 'overruled'. The 14th Amendment rendered Dred Scott moot.
Lol. [ deleted What an deleted ] declaration from you that ignores the obvious and demonstrates a total unfamiliarity or lack of comprehension of the topic.
Here's Professor Cass Sunstein, stating the obvious, that Dred Scott was the birthplace of substantive due process.
[ ]
' or was Dred Scott 'overruled'. The 14th Amendment rendered Dred Scott moot.
[ deleted ] Dred Scott “was overruled on the battlefields of the Civil War and by constitutional amendment after Appomattox."
As one of your compatriots here says so often, opinions do vary.
Funny that you would use Thomas as a source for your 'argument' since he does so ad nauseam in his Concurrence. Thomas' Concurrence boils down to 'cuz I said so, over and over and over again'.
Interesting complaint considering your argument consists of just calling someone full of shit without offering any support for your claim.
Oh, my bad Sean, since you block quoted it, I presumed that you invested your precious time to actually read ALL of Thomas' Concurrence. Thomas' own Concurrence supports my statement of FACT. Thomas cited HIMSELF 21 times in 7 pages. YOU can go count them for yourself if you'd like to take the time to do the research YOURSELF.
Lol. So much deflection. Who cares how many times he cited himself?
Pay attention. I was mocking you for complaining about Thomas citing himself when you provide zero support for your idiotic claim that "Scott had NOTHING to do with 'substantive due process".
Any fool can claim someone is full of shit. The hard part is backing it up with something more than throwing shit at the wall.
Try again.
Those who actually READ rulings and rely on them to help us understand US jurisprudence.
Pay attention.
First of all, mocking is verboten on NT.
Secondly, the purpose of block quoting from another member's comment is to address THAT part of the comment.
You block quoted what you wanted to mock but now you're deflecting.
Just like Thomas, YOU cite Thomas to back up your claims.
Your comment is all the backing I need that your comment is bullshit.
You should be too embarrassed to...
Justice Thomas is still one more authority than you've cited. But are you not capable of comprehending simple English? I also cited Professor Sunstein, one of the most prominent con lawyer scholars in America.
our comment is all the backing I need that your comment is bullshit.
You've wasted my time with yet another comment that misrepresents the discussion and you still fail to offer any support for your original claim. What a surprise.
I haven't cited Thomas as an 'authority' on anything.
Yes.
Point?
Are you claiming that I am somehow forcing you to participate Sean?
You're misrepresenting my comments.
I actually READ the ruling Sean. Dred Scott was WRONG in its entirety and abused the very core of substantive due process. In short, the PROPER use of 'substantive due process' would have ruled FOR Dred Scott.
Lol. Only you could take "Justice Thomas is still one more authority than you've cited." and somehow respond " i haven't cited Thomas as an authority on anything"
Bravo!
Dred Scott was WRONG in its entirety and abused the very core of substantive due process.
Lol. Now we gone we've gone from your original claim, that "Dred Scott had NOTHING (capitalization in original) to do with 'substantive due process " to claiming it "abused the very core of substantive due process"
You could have saved all of us a lot of trouble simply by replying Clarence Thomas was right originally.
LOL, you just don't get that I don't accept Thomas on an authority of ANY kind.
Who the fuck do you claim to be speaking for other than yourself Sean?
Oh, and Thomas wasn't right originally.
BTFW, of the 21 times Thomas cited himself in his Concurrence, most of the citations were dissents. That means that the majority of the Court didn't think he was right either.
Just wait until our jails start filling up with women.
Because, making abortions illegal won't stop them.
Why wouldn’t women that want an abortion just go to a state where abortion will STILL BE LEGAL? Do you think women are so stupid they wouldn’t think of that?
Fearmongering...
No one's going to jail.... Jeese...
Why should they be inconvenienced?
Can every woman afford to travel to another state? This is going to be a larger impact to the poorer in the country.
Not today but soon they will be charging women and doctors
Really? WHERE? name the places...
If a woman suffers a natural miscarriage she better get a note from her doctor or she may find herself prosecuted for, "Murdering her baby", under laws which now go into effect!
What a bunch of unmitigated bullshite...
Yes, our jails weren't full of women when abortion was illegal in every state in the country. Not going to happen now.
Wait and see. It will happen.
US women are being jailed for having miscarriages
Under some state's laws which now become effective women must medically document miscarriages or else be susceptible to being investigated and potentially charged for illegally obtaining an abortion. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong especially as regards fundamentalists and antiabortion deadenders.
Several years ago, Republican state legislator Bobby Franklin of Georgia sponsored a bill which, well, here:
That asshole is, fortunately, dead. But there are more monsters like him out there who claim to be "pro-life", but don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to reproductive biology, and don't care that they don't know, or how their ignorance affects others.
More recently, Ohio and Missouri state legislators attempted to force doctors to reimplant ectopic pregnancies rather than perform abortions, which would essentially sentence women experiencing ectopic pregnancy to death, or at best, an unnecessary invasive surgery that would have no hope of success.
There are men out there gunning for women. These men occupy public office. They ignore facts in favor of ideology, and they don't care if their ideology kills, so long as it's women who are the ones dying.
It will be ignorance that will bring this country down. Not only do we not make certain that every child can get a decent if not excellent education, there are many that look the other way when underfunded school districts fail and education opportunities shrink and fade away. It's largely due to IGNORANCE.
Exactly, in the very, very wealthy state of Maryland, in 2019, only $17,500 dollars was spent per child for the school year.
Do you think the average kid in Maryland received $17,500 worth of knowledge, skills and abilities they can use?
Baltimore test scores are suspect.
Not even doctors that perform abortions NWM?
Seriously, exactly how will states enforce prohibitions on abortions WITHOUT some sort of prosecutions?
And we just can imagine how some conservatives love the poor! Maybe they can adopt the new poor babies and give them a better 'home.' Of course, they might not ever let the poor former 'parents' live it down.
I'm trying to understand your comment as a reply to me as it definitely reads as a slam.
No. Not a slam. It is an enhancement to your thought and concern. Conservatives, some conservatives, just caught a 'ton' of babies by the foot and now the manage of "all these babies" is going to come to the forefront. The logistics, the cost, the reestablishment and growth potentially of old programs and industries, and that is when the griping about the poor as lazy, "baby-making machines," "assistance seekers," "government teat suckers" will rise vociferously. Next up: Some conservatives will compel a girl, a woman, to get a husband for every girl, woman should have one of him in the house.
Easy way to stop that, just become personally responsible and pay for any babies you bring into the world, easy peasy!
Thank you. It's sometimes difficult as one cannot get tone, inflection or nuance from the written word.
Look king of weasel-words, you can sit here and pretend you are not aware that some conservatives just created, build up, and executed a policy that will affect many girls and women's lives in positive and negative ways FOR LIFE. So don't bother me with your glib nonchalance about (liberal) girls and women taking on responsibility for someone they never asked for and in fact asked not to have to deal with!
When these babies start pouring in- some conservatives can take their sorry asses out and about and 'scoop' them up. You all take responsibility for them.
Since clearly some conservatives could not take, "No!" as the final answer. Here, have these babies you are figuratively and politically 'raping' girls and women to give you.
You're welcome!
See? The freakish commentary has already begun. Some conservatives are already jumping on the other side of the pro-life to bitch and moan about who's responsible and accountable to the new babies they demanded be born. Read it for yourself, Snuffy!
This is why I stand with girls and women against freakish conservatives who are all bother and no completion.
[deleted]
I’ve never seen ton used as a baby metric, how many babies in a ton, 266?
What old programs and industries?
Texas for one.
They are already appealing to AG Paxton not to move too quickly on the trigger law.
In theory, if ROE is moot, then the Texas codes written in 1925
and made unconstitutional in 1973 are back in effect, not the current vigilante law
allowing a $10,000.00 bounty and civil suit.
The 1925 laws allowed the state to arrest any abortion provider.
EPHC
Medicaid
Title V
WIC
SNAP
TX CHIP
TANF
CEAP
Child Support Services of the Child Support Division of the AG
Repatriation Program
Orphanages
Foster Programs
to name a few...
“Reestablishment”?
I haven’t seen Fox for years. Just reference some, a little bit of the shit that you write.
Shhh.
[deleted]
i will adopt as many as you do!
[deleted]
Wow.
Thought I had seen it all.
Your comment has ZERO to do with mine.
Thanks for participating, I guess???
Have you priced the cost of a gallon of gas these days? Takes an awful lot of gas to get to New York from Mississippi
Such arrogance. So nasty.
"Have you priced the cost of a gallon of gas these days? Takes an awful lot of gas to get to New York from Mississippi"
Some geniuses say that will help the travel industry. You know, those women will have to travel to states where it's legal to have rights to her own body."
Another case that Thomas took aim at was McDonald v Chicago. I can't wait to hear what the 2nd Amendment absolutists have to say about that.
I wonder if Thomas wants to reconsider Loving vs Virginia and if his wife will tell him what to do. He may have opened a can of worms
She is the one who calls the shots
I'm going to start referring to him as TT (Token Thomas) to save time
Funny how that wasn't brought up
I appreciate the work you do for conservatives by posting. Time and time again you demonstrate just what it is progressives stand for.
Your usual projection and denial
Your usual copy & paste, except you left out deflection.
[Deleted]
The true colors of a phony lib - two degrees short of 'uppity'.
Lemme explain this for you JB...
So, explain away. This should be entertaining...
You know Ginni 'wears the pants in the TT household' Thomas was involved with 1/6/21 also.
So true.
he should be more worried about any applicable bestiality laws...
"he should be more worried about any applicable bestiality laws..."
She's quite the heffer!
It sounds like cnn and msnbc are looking up because the sky is falling.
Expect the calls for packing the court to get louder.
I wonder what they are so afraid of? Citizens deciding things for themselves?
Like deciding to remove things from inside their bodies they don't want there?
Expect women voters to eschew the gop, evermore!
{chuckle} not hardly...
The majority of pro lifers are women.
Decent sane women steer clear of those scumbags
You mean the women that the left wants to call birth givers? Or maybe women that the left labeled as domestic terrorists for protecting their children at school? Or maybe the women that see the left bringing women back decades by promoting men competing against them in sports? Those women? I don't forsee that many one issue voters. I believe women are smarter than that.
We shall see
You are ruining the narrative with facts.
The majority of women are not antiabortion!
Not what he said
That should bode well in state legislatures.
Surprisingly, Pew Research Center found that the gender gapv narrowed from 2016 to 2020. Trump significantly improved his standing among women winning 44 percent of women in 2020 versus 39 percent in 2016.
Not according to Pew or Gallup. Do you have a secular link that proves your claim?
Rather than a never ending parade of horrible to scare people (slavery is coming back!) , why not follow the democratic path and pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect all these things? Instead of relying on unelected Justices to create these rights out of thin air and force them on the country?
Why not leave things alone? Why make things worse?
Well, none of these things are under attack that I am aware of. But if you think they are, we decided as a country that the way to create a Constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.
I
Because something was created that the founders never intended to be created then used to create and justify many many things that certain interests groups could not get for themselves in the normal course of society...
THAT has finally been corrected today... Does it make things worse, not really, but people think it will without seeing if it is actually true, so their reaction is to do nothing...
Two wrongs do not make a right... and the wrong was corrected today...
What's next? Same sex marriage? Interracial marriage? Women's suffrage? Integration? Child labor laws? Racial discrimination?
Let the citizens of their local area decide for themselves...
I thought the Liberal Democrat party was the party of the people?
Why are you so afraid of letting citizens decide for themselves what is going to be in their communities?
Because the Constitution and the federal government make sure that states do not violate your rights. GOP want a state free for all. What happened the last time? Anyone remember the Civil War?
No one here is old enough to remember that.
No, some things are left strictly to the states.
Don't be so melodramatic. Different states have different laws. Just look at gun laws from state to state.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a check on the power of the federal government over the citizens and states... If you follow the founders clearly stated intent that is... The plain purpose of the Bill of Rights is to expressly state such in open plain language and was passed to reassure the states of such...
It is the federal government that is limited by the constitution not the citizens...
It's the Nazi's and all socialists that view the government as having ultimate power over the citizens...
Anything not expressly granted in the constitution as a power of the government is reserved for the citizens and states EXCLUSIVELY...
It's good to finally have a Supreme Court that recognizes this foundational concept of our government...
Why are you so afraid of letting women decide for themselves what is going to be in their bodies?
Not afraid of that at all...
You probably are unaware, I marched in the 70's in support of abortion, I am pro-choice, have been all my life...
But I am against blanket regulations that force a small opinion upon the entire body politic... 80% of the citizens support the pro-choice stance... that's not the issue....
The issue is the extent of such, which currently is split almost 50/50 right now, just like it was in the 70's.... All for women making the decision if they wish to be preggers or not, within reasonable limits... And three and a half months should be sufficient time for most to come to some sort of resolution to that question...
Why is it that you think it isn't?
I think it's a decision for the woman and her doctor. Not for you, or me, or "the voters" or the legislature.
Agreed!
Problem is the politicians and activists have made it an issue that needs to be addressed legally, THAT is what makes it everyone's business...
WE all marched to end the back alley abortions that were killing women wholesale cause of simple biology they could not change....
WE did that... Today that is not part of the issue anymore and never will be again... Thank God...
The means to do that, however justified back then, has created many more issues than anyone back then foresaw.
The created "Right to Privacy" has caused even more problems than it ever resolved...
It served it purpose and it is time it went away...
Now such things are back in the hands they should have been all along, the state legislatures, removing the overarching federal government blanket approach... The socialist approach so to speak...
Abortion is going nowhere it will be with us as it should be, we all know this, why is it people can't let go of the federal power when it is no longer needed...
Abortion should not have been made illegal in the first place
That miserable bastard would make breathing illegal because there's no constitutional guarantee for it (as long as Ginni says so), but give him free rein cause the world must be shaking its head already over what's been happening in America.
Thomas thinks and says whatever his wife tells him to think and say. His wife has far more influence on Thomas than the Constitution or law has, so she in reality is the real Justice on the SCOTUS, Thomas just plays the part the way he is told to play it by his wife. And like many others of her ilk, she is an American in name only.
wonder if she calls him , Uncle Thomas...?
There is nothing she could say or do that would surprise me. She wants to be as star in our government, and she will say and/or do anything that will make that come true as she sees it. Her in depth affiliation with QAnon and strong support of Trump and the January 6th attempted coup proves she is ready and willing to sell America to the highest bidder, and it seems that her husband is a ready and willing supporter of whatever she does. As a Justice on the highest court in America, this is a blight on our justice system at the top level.
I wonder just how long Ginni Thomas would be willing to stay with Clarence Thomas if he were no longer a Supreme Court justice and could no longer have a puppet to do her bidding.
I'd be willing to bet it would not be for very long.
Wonder if he says, who's your daddy, or Uncle, in the bedroom , but, probably pc incorrect, and that'sprobably why it was used, cause their is NOTHING politically correct about using your position in such a prestigious place, to pursue a vendetta against people who knew and saw who he really was and is, so many years ago
Put that together with the fact that the three Trumpist judges lied through their teeth about Roe when they were vetted and you have a disasterous SCOTUS that will pull America down and send it back to the Middle Ages.
I agree Iggy. There is nothing to justify Thomas using his high position to use the law to take revenge on his perceived 'liberal' attackers. His statement right there should be enough to have him lose his position. His using his position to wreck havoc and misery on a select group of people in revenge for what he says was inflicted on him by unknown 'liberals', goes against everything his position should stand for.
Personal grudges, like politics and religion, should have no place in our Supreme Court. Thomas, along with the other radical justices, have no place in the highest court of the land, as they go against the meaning of the Constitution. Yet, that is what we are seeing happening today.
Someone once said that America would not be destroyed from the outside, but, from the inside. And it is looking like that projection could be well on its way of coming true.
JMOO
That may well be true, however, there is nothing that says that Supreme Court Justices can't be impeached. While it is rare for that to happen, John Rutledge was involuntarily removed. While, thus far, only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached.
However, Supreme Court justices can also be impeached if they commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," which would include any serious legal infraction (not traffic tickets) or ethics violation.
While it may be hard to remove them due to the process necessary to do so, it is not impossible.
Ethics are not important to justices whose past establishes a dedication towards pro-life to the extent of writing treatises on the subject AND THEN NOT RECUSING THEMSELVES ON A CASE CONCERNING ABORTION.
[deleted] ACB's prior writings about abortion no more disqualify her to sit on an abortion case than Kagan's First Amendment academic writings on the first amendment disqualify her from First Amendment cases. It's an idiotic position with no basis in how the Court functions. If it did, Ginsburg could never have sat on an abortion case either. If you think for one second you'd realize your standard would disqualify any justice with any sort of academic or legal career from sitting on the bench because they always have to recuse them themselves.
[deleted]
I think it depends on how deeply they involve themselves in the issue, and in fact LIVE it in their religious beliefs, and in how much they lie about it while being vetted for the position.
Supreme Court nominees are vetted by the FBI, and even though they may not are not under oath for the vetting process, it is a felony crime to lie to the FBI for any reason. Thus, if it can be proved that both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch did indeed deliberately lie to the FBI during their vetting procedures, it would would be grounds for their impeachment, and whatever legal punishments they could also be charged with.
While I am not a lawyer, I don't think that further investigations of the two Justices would be out of the question at this point, as well as a revisit of the Anita Hill's charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas by the FBI. And there may not be a statute of limitations that could interfere with that possibility. He also told his law clerks he "intended to serve on the highest court of the land to make the lives of liberals miserable in revenge for what he claimed was because "liberals" made his life miserable prior to his Supreme Court appointment, while providing no proof of that ever happening.
JMOO
Oh, so it's about religious discrimination than.
Or do you think someone any woman who had an abortion can't participate in abortion related cases. Or any man who supported a woman who got an abortion? It seems to me under your standard, unless its just religious bigotry, anyone who expressed support for abortion rights at any time in their life would have to recuse themselves too.
Nice try, but no cigar. Amazing isn't it that it seems so difficult to read the word "and" and then use that omission to put words into a person's mouth as if that word did not exist.
Lol. Why would you possibly imagine that helps your case? Religious tests are explicitly unconstitutional.
Religious tests are beloved by tyrants and their apologists.
so what cases should observant Jews be barred from hearing? Muslims (I suspect I know how you'd answer that), Atheists would be unable to participate in any free exercise case right? Or it only Catholics you feel the Constitution n doesn't protect?
Who decides which Jewish person is too biased to hear a case? Mitch McConnell?
Given the "logic" in his ruling, marriage, much less interracial marriage, was never mentioned in the Constitution, thus it is not a legit right.
Clarence Thomas is a fucking idiot.
Ditto. This man, Thomas, is now the senior justice. And this is what he is 'elder' statesman for? This is outrageous. This is insufferable. This is disgusting!
An educated black man made something of himself and ascended to the peak of his profession, and now you want to rag on him?
Is his example of being successful too hard to bear?
Yeah, he is a fucking idiot.
Everybody has an opinion.
So what? Texan, lots of educated fools running around. But, you know what? I am getting beyond your callous regard for your fellow citizens. In my opinion, your slights and belittling is passé. And besides, you criticize anybody who does not share your political and religious worldview, and I don't expect anything more from you.
Clarence Thomas, is a senior ("MAGA") conservative and I expect liberals will be largely disappointed in his role as court senior member. This is not a new stance I am taking about him, but as his status just became more prominent, I will state it clear and often.
Many of them are progressive liberals.
I am not the one who calls a successful black man an Uncle Tom, and I condemn that characterization when I see it. What do YOU do? Nothing..............other than play your little race and victim cards.
Sorry, I was unaware that liberals' disappointment necessitated calling Thomas an Uncle Tom. Be disappointed, and elect a President who can nominate someone else when the time comes. Just like when conservatives have been disappointed with some Court decisions.
Became more prominent? You have just got to be kidding. He is one member of the Court, and isn't the Chief Justice.
I am sorry your hatred of conservativism allows you to rail on him.
You can't chastise me about Thomas. Get that into your brain.
I don't care what others have to say about Clarence Thomas, because I am too busy trying to figure out why a black man can be in service for himself or a few, when he supposedly represents justice; is married to the woman of his dreams; has a lifetime job literally; and still be so down on women, and others who can not have the life he has or choose to live differently.
As for your "Uncle Tom" rhetoric, obviously you need to attach it to a narrative for discussion, but pick some one else. I am asking you nicely not to try to clog my thoughts with the verbiage.
If you took my comment as chastising you, so be it. You know.....if the shoe fits.
Hmmm. Maybe you should instead try to understand why you think he isn't following the law.
Your thought clogs are not my problem.
Is Thomas somehow not fitting into what you think the perfect black man should be?
What the "H" should a perfect man be? Tell me, and I will try to let you know if I agree or disagree with you.
Playing games with other people lives and livelihood is not sensible or acceptable (law). People have a right to some peace in this country, just as much as conservatives and some conservatives.
I am pretty sure you will 'bank shot' the above paragraph to say something else or just be base, so come on with it. Just try to be explicit so we can get it over with ASAP.
Now, how in the hell would I know what is the perfect man to you, since you never have answered any questions?
Sorry, I am not the type to seek agreement or disagreement from you.
If you have an opinion, clearly state it.
In which amendment did you find that?
I don't think anyone is playing games. I think you just made that up out of thin air.
Sure they do, who is arguing differently?
You often remind me of Reagan's quote:
NOPE. I don't know any perfect men. Since you brought it up: you should tell me about the perfect 'man' for you.
I will just chalk it up to a deficiency of some kind that you don't know when to stop being a troll. But, you will stop trolling me, July 1, 2022. Bet that. Therefore, get me out of your system today.
Deflecting is so lame!
Last night, I was laying in bed, thinking how all my life I have been stigmatized for loving someone like myself and how it was finally acceptable to do so, the joy it gave me to know that there is a place for "us" in this world, and then the same court that made my joy-foreshadows its intent to 'break my face' by rejecting and tossing same-sex love and its "togetherness" in marriage out into the dark void (again). All before I end my days in this life, my joy could be returned to confusion and weeping. NOTE: The irony is I am someone who has not "joined" in the newly found liberty for me in our shared society, because I am celibate for nearly thirty years.
Why?
All because conservatives can't be happy that liberals (people like me) are happiest being able to be free citizens, like them too, to love another citizen of this so-called free country.
I just opened my inner thoughts to you and when you spurn, discount, or mock it accept that I is what it is.
Sounds like you are an unhappy person, but I am glad you found your scapegoat in conservatives, it will give you purpose.
I am unhappy that for whatever reason, people like me are a conservative on the SCOTUS obsession. I don't scapegoat conservatives, you all willingly volunteer to insert yourselves in minimizing and ruining my, our, lives and chance at happiness.
In your dreams!
I told you ahead of time you would not take any of this seriously. Interesting, to sit in judgement of other people's realities from the relative safety of a heterosexual majority. It's weird too. Because all the bad times and remembrances were stirred up in me about how it feels to be a second class citizen and outcast, under the control of a hateful/spiteful/judgemental majority. How much coping and how many coping mechanisms I have had to develop to make it this far emerged in this life.
Always the victim!
Please edit that comment!
Better yet would be delete, think and rewrite.
“I just opened my inner thoughts to you…”
Your willingness to share your experiences and the honesty in which they are conveyed sets you apart, sir.
Take care when addressing those that lack any understanding, lack any compassion, and lack any desire to engage in a meaningful way. Rather, surround yourself with adults who will listen, will respect, and will at the very least acknowledge a disparate thought.
Peace to you and yours, CB.
Hey Tex, wanna join him...?
You asserted a right that isn't recorded. I challenged and you call it trolling. Just put me on ignore and inform me when you do if you can't handle the replies.
Naw, I don't want to join anyone in playing victim.
But you go right ahead!
Please translate this.
And yet it is you conservatives and some conservatives who can not be happy unless "the gays" are disheartened and demoralized. What kind of white, evangelical, male grievance is that?
Nope.
Piss off.
Okay.
Whatever you were attempting to write will remain a mystery for all of time!
Why do you insist on outright lying about what makes me happy?
White evangelical male grievance? WTF are you going on about now, or is this just the continuation of playing victim?
A thousand thumbs UP!!!!
I appreciate your understanding and sharing. I take stock of who I am vulnerable to, because I have to be me, despite the repartee.
If some of us just come here to be jerks, chumps, and 'doggish' that is on them. I have to be true to my convictions or else I become less and 'nothing' but part of the problem myself.
I will admit this. I have taken many tones and attitudes recently as I have sought to deal with Trumpism and Trump-likers, and on reflection I see that I am becoming more caustic. I really have to access if this is who I want to be become as time goes forward. Some conservatives are playing a long game to possess all that is good about this country according to their worldview-how am I going to factor into the discussions to push back against it without becoming cynical, bitter, coarse, and vulgar at their disingenuousness?
That's a confusing expression in text without inflection. Are you pissed off, or are angry (Amer) or do you mean, leave immediately (British) while getting pissed is to get drunk (British), but pissing around is to waste time and then there is to knock the piss out of you. Clarity when writing is important.
Why bother to faux-differentiate between 'you conservatives' and 'some conservatives' when we are all the same to you?
Just to be clear, I'm not a Trumper and never voted for him. Don't view everyone that disagrees with you as a Trumper.
You stop that this instant and get back in that cage he constructed for you. HE will decide what you think and who you voted for!
Why, you some conservative, you!
Piss off.
I am having that discussion with myself right now. It has become very difficult for me to deal with the dark thoughts I am having while trying to practice Wicca. Not harmonious in the least.
See 10.1.36
So Michael Steele,former chair of the RNC, Steve Schmidt, Representative Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger are all the same to you, Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell—Not!
I hear you. I am considering walking away . . . . But, I don't see how it would benefit 'us' liberals to cede the space. Some conservatives have either never felt nothing beyond their own selfish interests (this is borne out by the timeline of their demands) or have simply determined to go for broke on the lack of conscience. . . either way I have got some thinking (or refreshing) to do!
I no longer care what you are not, Drinker. Now, I take for granted you are not a good person to talk to on a regular basis. It is my final opinion on you.
[deleted]
since you are putting your words in my mouth, imagine what my reply would be!
That's one of the best replies I've seen in a long time - I'm still laughing.
Why? Would it do any good or advance this discussion? Probably not! And though it seems like a very long time ago, there are many republican/conservatives who were against homosexuals before Trumpism.
Get off that "advance discussion" bs, I know you don't mean it because never have you ever bothered to answer a single question from me. If you did truly want to "advance the discussion", you wouldn't invent words and act as if I stated them. That is intellectually dishonest and rather a lazy tactic.
The probably is totally unnecessary.
I am sure there were some people who you would consider liberal that felt the same way, too.
What does that have to do with me or anything I have written?
It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to "advance the discussion" when you change topics faster and more often than a fat kid eats a dozen donuts!
One-trick pony from the insufferable school of discord. Enough of your insults, delay, obfuscations, and condescension. Do not address me directly anymore for the duration of July 2022. And I will not address you for a one month period. Respect my space and I will respect yours.
Well, now, THAT certainly advances discussion!
LMAO!
Do you reserve your right to address me?
Nice edit after I replied.
You aren't in a position to tell me who I can post to or when I can post.
I respect your space as long as you manage to stay on one topic and can answer a question every year or so.
I don't seek nor need your respect.
It is amazing how wrong you can be in just one paragraph.
Not surprising you think so. What IS surprising is you didn't call him an Uncle Tom.
Not wrong at all, given his logic I can argue his marriage, and indeed all marriages, are unconstitutional.
Nah, just a fucking idiot.
Do you say that about all the conservative Justices?
Unsuccessfully.