Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution'

[Rogue AI]

All the same what I said is true. Does that make RvW something the courts can uphold? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying privacy is in the Constitution.

Actually privacy is not in the Constitution. When previous Justices invented the concept they could not even agree to it's Constitutional origins.

 

[pknopp]

Actually privacy is not in the Constitution. When previous Justices invented the concept they could not even agree to it's Constitutional origins.

The 4th Amendment is all about privacy.

 

[Rogue AI]

The 4th Amendment is all about privacy.

Yet never cited in Roe or Griswold. Which is precisely why Thomas is right and it needs to corrected.

 

[pknopp]

Yet never cited in Roe or Griswold. Which is precisely why Thomas is right and it needs to corrected.

I'm only acknowledging that a right to privacy is in the Constitution.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Waaaaa Black Man not acting like he should !!!!!!!!

Uh oh Coon alert.....The lefty sirens are on full blast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't agree. The fundamental right to privacy existed for nearly 70 years. People are not somehow ignorant in think the govt has no power to tell them what contraceptives to use or with whom they can have sex. They may not have any interest in how 9 Justices who have little in common with them get to that belief, but that's not really the issue.

EP didn't protect interracial marriages until the SC actually reversed precedent because civilized people didn't want to treat blacks unequally anymore. The fundamental right to marry is not mentioned in the const, but it hasn't been disputed. Five or Six Justices (Gorsuch and Roberts are ?) think that this same result should not apply to gay people. Most people don't see the govt having any reason to interfer. I think they understand the const perfectly well.

At the time of the Founding, no laws prohibited abortion before quickening. Alito acknoweledged that, yet somehow found states have a power to do just that. People understand exactly what theorcrats and the Five are up to. And that's what Thomas objects to.

It can't be a fundamental right if they just found it. And how is an abortion a right to privacy? No medical procedures are in the Constitution.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm only acknowledging that a right to privacy is in the Constitution.

It's not there, but I would be more apt, if the left actually believed this. They played a taped PRIVATE conversation of a Presidential candidate on national TV.. Again it's only there when the left wants it to be there......fuck these people

 

[pknopp]

It's not there, but I would be more apt, if the left actually believed this. They played a taped PRIVATE conversation of a Presidential candidate on national TV.. Again it's only there when the left wants it to be there......fuck these people

Whether or not they are hypocritical doesn't change actual facts.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Whether or not they are hypocritical doesn't change actual facts.

No it doesn't, it's not in there, but I love seeing their tears after what they do to others, I get a lot of pleasure from the face piercing meltdowns, it's almost orgasmic

 

[pknopp]

No it doesn't, it's not in there, but I love seeing their tears after what they do to others, I get a lot of pleasure from the face piercing meltdowns, it's almost orgasmic

And we wonder why things are falling apart.

 

[Indeependent]

Actually not, lol. But the legitimacy of the Sup Ct lies in ordinary citizens believing their opinions reflect what the law should be .. under the constitution. And we do evolve as a society. I doubt more than a very small minority would excuse a president ignoring a Sup Ct decision and to go ahead and take land from indigenous people. And people are not stupid for noticing that what the Sup Ct said about gay and interracial marriage ... simply changed despite no change in the const.

The one difference here is simply a right to privacy. You or I may not agree, and I'd even say Goldberg was right in Griswold, but how the due process clause (and equal protection) as they were construed at the time, hamstrung the majority, so ... it was what it was. But IF like Thomas you think the states have any power to regulate contraception to promote some morality ... good luck with that.

Probably it comes down to how we, and others, view the significance of the most vocal voters in more socially conservative state. Even in Miss, a maj believe women should be able to have abortions early in term. Alito views there not being a historical consensus that would give even stare decisis legitimacy to Roe. Imo his views are extreme and based in a religion few of us see as anything besides an anachronism. But to legitimize his view, he has to ignore the fact that the result of Roe should be affirmed under equal protection. And appellate courts absolutely have the power to uphold laws based on alternative theories that aren't even raised by litigants.

And we do evolve as a society

Some segments devolve as a society.

 

[Billy000]

He’s not wrong but so the fuck what? Does this justify his decisions in some way? Who the fuck cares what he thinks of this topic.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And we wonder why things are falling apart.

NAh, we don't start it.....you guys are the ones who block the roads and then get mad when someone gets run over.....

 

[pknopp]

NAh, we don't start it.....you guys are the ones who block the roads and then get mad when someone gets run over.....

I've never blocked a road.

 

[BackAgain]

Someone tell this bigoted boomer the Constitution can be accessed for free from you iPhone.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

news.yahoo.com

Your own ignorance is astounding. He said “more interested in.” Do you think people are generally looking-up ConstitutionL matters on their iPhones?

I mean. You might. I do. Lots of people on a politically oriented message board might do so, also. But are you seriously suggesting that our pastime, diversion and interest is the same as the average citizens? Come off it.

Justice Thomas is clearly right.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I've never blocked a road.

I didn't say you did, but your ANTIFA/BLM friends do.....and complain when a car hits them....

 

[basquebromance]

Justice Thomas is a minority of one

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say you did, but your ANTIFA/BLM friends do.....and complain when a car hits them....

I don't block roads. You are the one reacting the way you did.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't block roads. You are the one reacting the way you did.

You represent the left...they do.....so are you telling me you're against them blocking roads?

 

[pknopp]

You represent the left...they do.....so are you telling me you're against them blocking roads?

I support people's right to Constitutionally protected protest. I support it for everyone.