So Glad That Clarence Was Brave Enough To Say What Needed To Be Said

[Fort Fun Indiana]

..He almost said we should reconsider Loving v Virginia but his wife called...so he changed his mind.

Yes, funny that he didn't mention that one. Since it would go on the list for the same reasons.

Intellectual corruption, on parade.

 

[okfine]

Thomas craps on precedence. Not the first time for him. His opinion of the Constitution and only his.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you read the opinion he didn't mention Loving.

Yes, funny how that works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not really because marriages between different races and tribes were only really banned during the leadup to the civil war and right after it. Miscegenation laws were reactionary, not really enshrined at the time of the founding of the Constitution.

Yes, really. Rests on the same basis.

And State bans on interracial marriage persisted until the 1960s, including in my State (1965).

 

[martybegan]

Tell that to the Loving family.....

And loving was a correct opinion, Obergfell and Roe were not.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, really. Rests on the same basis.

And State bans on interracial marriage persisted until the 1960s, including in my State (1965).

And they were unconstitutional because denial of a marriage certificate based on race is unconstitutional.

Denial of a Same sex license is not because until the last two decades they were never even heard of, must lest enshrined in the constitution.

Now ignoring a valid same sex marriage license from a state that does issue them in a State that doesn't issue them would be unconstitutional due to full faith and credit violations.

It really is simple if you consider yourself a strict constructionist.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

And loving was a correct opinion, Obergfell and Roe were not.

Based on what?

Why was Loving the correct opinion??


And why do you folks keep dodging Lawerence V Texas?? He mentioned that too

 

[martybegan]

Based on what?

Why was Loving the correct opinion??


And why do you folks keep dodging Lawerence V Texas?? He mentioned that too

Based on the fact that interracial marriage and inter-tribe marriage has always been around, and was only banned for a few decades as a reaction to the whole slavery fuckup on our countries part. It was also partial, as it didn't include other races, just whites and black.

Same sex marriage is a concept only 20 years or so old, and thus has no establishment in history, and thus is a new concept that can only be added to our laws via legislative action.

As States issue marriage licenses, issuance is a State issue. However as recognition of the licenses is a Federal issue, and full faith and credit is part of the constitution, States cannot be forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses, but they can be forced to RECOGNIZE valid same sex marriage licenses from other States that do issue them.

 

[marvin martian]

Same-Sex Marriage and Contraception Should Be Next on Chopping Block: Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court should reconsidering same-sex marriage and contraception after striking down Roe v. Wade.

www.rollingstone.com

"In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday determined that states can restrict or outright ban abortion at any point during a pregnancy. The decision overturned Roe v. Wade, a 1973 case that established a constitutional right to abortion services. In a concurring opinion, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that the Supreme Court should reconsider previous rulings that established the right to contraception, same-sex marriage, and protections for same-sex relationship."View attachment 661730
Bout time someone finally said it......I was getting tired of cowardly conservatives being too afraid to go back after same-sex marriage and fighting back against these fags.....Lawrence V Texas needs to be struck down....that will deliver a significant blow to these trannys and fags because in the states that love Jesus -- these people can be put in prison and possibly put to death.....He almost said we should reconsider Loving v Virginia but his wife called...so he changed his mind...maybe next time, bro....but while Conservatives are riding the good news of the Roe decision, they shouldn't overlook how popular it will be to resurrect the fight against same-sex marriage and the whole groomer gay lifestyle....Campaign on it, don't be afraid....it may not have been enough of winning issue in the past, but it can be now...

Cope and seethe, fascist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And they were unconstitutional because denial of a marriage certificate based on race is unconstitutional.

Um... you aren't understanding how any of this works.

It only became unconstitutional when the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional.

So your argument is nonsensical.

We aren't talking about what you think "should be". We are talking about what is and will be.

 

[toobfreak]

The decision overturned Roe v. Wade, a 1973 case that established a constitutional right to abortion services.

WRONG, Moron. How can abortion be a "constitutional" right when NO WHERE in the constitution is abortion even mentioned?

What the court did was to overturn the UNConstitutional FEDERALIZATION of a STATE'S right, ie., democracy.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Based on the fact that interracial marriage and inter-tribe marriage has always been around, and was only banned for a few decades as a reaction to the whole slavery fuckup on our countries part. It was also partial, as it didn't include other races, just whites and black.

Same sex marriage is a concept only 20 years or so old, and thus has no establishment in history, and thus is a new concept that can only be added to our laws via legislative action.

As States issue marriage licenses, issuance is a State issue. However as recognition of the licenses is a Federal issue, and full faith and credit is part of the constitution, States cannot be forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses, but they can be forced to RECOGNIZE valid same sex marriage licenses from other States that do issue them.

A woman's right to vote is only so many years old.....so if 20 years after the passage of 19th amendment -- are you saying that if someone wanted to strike that down - you would support that because it was only a "right" for 20 or so years?


Same with 18 year olds....are you saying the 26th amendment can be struck down now because it hasn't been around that long??


Funny how you Conservatives like to enshrine everyone's rights in a time frame where only white men had all the rights..


That is not how constitutional rights and equal protection work....and again, you keep dodging my question.....Was Lawrence V Texas rightly decided? Because Conservatives have been pissed about not being able to criminalize gay people for a long time...


And why are Conservatives so gung ho about taking away rights from women and gays while pumping ya chest about ya own rights and freedoms...

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

WRONG, Moron. How can abortion be a "constitutional" right when NO WHERE in the constitution is abortion even mentioned?

What the court did was to overturn the UNConstitutional FEDERALIZATION of a STATE'S right, ie., democracy.

Lot's of things aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but we don't need every single thing to be mentioned in order to establish equal protection....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Cope and seethe, fascist.

View attachment 661781

Actually, the fascists are the folks who tried to overturn the election.....but deflection noted


But its funny how someone who doesn't get ***** is so vested in trying to police people with the pussies

 

[toobfreak]

we don't need every single thing to be mentioned in order to establish equal protection....

And we just did that. Now once again, states are free to explore their RIGHT to decide abortion democratically according to the wishes of their citizens. Anything NOT enumerated (spelled-out) in the Constitution as a FEDERAL RIGHT is a STATE RIGHT.

Thank you SCOTUS for upholding LAW, the CONSTITUTION and DEMOCRACY.

 

[marvin martian]

A woman's right to vote is only so many years old.....so if 20 years after the passage of 19th amendment -- are you saying that if someone wanted to strike that down - you would support that because it was only a "right" for 20 or so years?


Same with 18 year olds....are you saying the 26th amendment can be struck down now because it hasn't been around that long??


Funny how you Conservatives like to enshrine everyone's rights in a time frame where only white men had all the rights..


That is not how constitutional rights and equal protection work....and again, you keep dodging my question.....Was Lawrence V Texas rightly decided? Because Conservatives have been pissed about not being able to criminalize gay people for a long time...


And why are Conservatives so gung ho about taking away rights from women and gays while pumping their chest about how their own rights and freedom...

One more time for you, you ******* idiot; THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION, AND THERE NEVER WAS.

The other things you're talking about are constitutional rights. Different. Get it?

 

[toobfreak]

the fascists are the folks who tried to overturn the election.....

With Selfie sticks and cellphone cameras?! HOO BOY!

 

[martybegan]

Um... you aren't understanding how any of this works.

It only became unconstitutional when the SCOTUS ruled it was unconstitutional.

So your argument is nonsensical.

We aren't talking about what you think "should be". We are talking about what is and will be.

My argument is based on how I see the Constitution as a Strict Constructionist, and a Federalist.

 

[martybegan]

A woman's right to vote is only so many years old.....so if 20 years after the passage of 19th amendment -- are you saying that if someone wanted to strike that down - you would support that because it was only a "right" for 20 or so years?


Same with 18 year olds....are you saying the 26th amendment can be struck down now because it hasn't been around that long??


Funny how you Conservatives like to enshrine everyone's rights in a time frame where only white men had all the rights..


That is not how constitutional rights and equal protection work....and again, you keep dodging my question.....Was Lawrence V Texas rightly decided? Because Conservatives have been pissed about not being able to criminalize gay people for a long time...


And why are Conservatives so gung ho about taking away rights from women and gays while pumping their chest about how their own rights and freedom...

Because it's an amendment, it can only be overturned by another amendment, and I don't support an overturning an amendment.

A court has no more ability to overturn the women's suffrage amendment as they do the 2nd amendment, or to create a right like Abortion rights out of thin air as they did with Roe.

What amendment made Abortion a protected right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My argument is based on how I see the Constitution as a Strict Constructionist, and a Federalist.

I don't give a shit about your argument. Nobody does.

What makes something constitutional is when the SCOTUS rules that it is.

So you can hide behind this nonsense of "its MY opinion!", if you want.

But in what the rest of us call "reality", interracial marriage was not a constitutionally protected right until the SCOTUS ruled that it is.