The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[berg80]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Which state is considering outlawing interracial marriage?

 

[berg80]

Which state is considering outlawing interracial marriage?

I didn't say one was. I said Clarence and friends has set a standard by which interracial marriage, like gay marriage, because both were antithetical to beliefs at the time of the founding (read his concurring opinion in Roe), is open to being banned if a state so chooses.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I didn't say one was. I said Clarence and friends has set a standard by which interracial marriage, like gay marriage, because both were antithetical to beliefs at the time of the founding (read his concurring opinion in Roe), is open to being banned if a state so chooses.

Well I sincerely doubt they will. But carry on...oh and don't forget about banning birth control, that seems to be another thing you people are sqauwking about

 

[miketx]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

Why are all you racists only going after the lone black guy that voted to end fed abortion support. Why not the five other white people too? You racists always show your colors.

 

[Hugo Furst]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need P

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

about the same as Pelosi and BIden will feel when they are told they will not be allowed communion, because of their support of abortion.

 

[lennypartiv]

The OP is reaching here. There is nothing in the Constitution protecting interracial marriage.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Abortion is not in the constitution.
The USSC has overturned its previous rulings over 200 times.
The overturning of RvW doesn't ban abortion.
It just leaves abortion laws up the States to decide.
Some of the backwards Blue States are already talking about making money off of abortion tourism
The Dirty Democrat Party is just exploiting the hate and ignorance of their crackpot cult followers.

 

[skews13]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

Yep. Before the Heller decision, the second amendment was construed to mean a state regulated militia.

Which makes the Heller decision wrongly decided, and can be overturned by a later court.

That historical precedent set by this court, will be a good pattern to be used for that very purpose in the future.

 

[berg80]

Well I sincerely doubt they will. But carry on...oh and don't forget about banning birth control, that seems to be another thing you people are sqauwking about

Here's what you seem to be confused about.

Thomas Calls For SCOTUS To ‘Reconsider’ Rights To Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception

Justice Clarence Thomas bothers with none of that. He says outright that the Court should revisit other landmark decisions — naming the cases that protect the right to a same-sex marriage, to conduct private sex acts and to access contraception. “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he writes. He omits Loving v. Virginia, the case protecting interracial marriage, which is often listed in the same breath with the other three.

“Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways,” he writes. “Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.” It’s a hallmark entry in the “saying the quiet part out loud” category.

The dissenting liberal justices take note. “The first problem with the majority’s account comes from Justice Thomas’ concurrence—which makes clear he is not with the program,” they write, after pillorying the majority’s insistence that this decision won’t threaten other, related constitutional rights.
“So at least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again,” they add.
Thomas Calls For Court To ‘Reconsider’ Rights To Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says gay rights, contraception rulings should be reconsidered after Roe is overturned

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.

Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe...ays-gay-rights-rulings-open-to-be-tossed.html

So those who value privacy rights aren't so much squawking about anything as reacting to threats from a far right extremist looking to reshape American society in the religious based image he thinks should be imposed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Here's what you seem to be confused about.

Thomas Calls For SCOTUS To ‘Reconsider’ Rights To Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception

Justice Clarence Thomas bothers with none of that. He says outright that the Court should revisit other landmark decisions — naming the cases that protect the right to a same-sex marriage, to conduct private sex acts and to access contraception. “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he writes. He omits Loving v. Virginia, the case protecting interracial marriage, which is often listed in the same breath with the other three.

“Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways,” he writes. “Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.” It’s a hallmark entry in the “saying the quiet part out loud” category.

The dissenting liberal justices take note. “The first problem with the majority’s account comes from Justice Thomas’ concurrence—which makes clear he is not with the program,” they write, after pillorying the majority’s insistence that this decision won’t threaten other, related constitutional rights.
“So at least one Justice is planning to use the ticket of today’s decision again and again and again,” they add.
Thomas Calls For Court To ‘Reconsider’ Rights To Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says gay rights, contraception rulings should be reconsidered after Roe is overturned

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.

Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe...ays-gay-rights-rulings-open-to-be-tossed.html

So those who value privacy rights aren't so much squawking about anything as reacting to threats from a far right extremist looking to reshape American society in the religious based image he thinks should be imposed.

It's not going to happen. Untwist your panties

 

[berg80]

Abortion is not in the constitution.

Thanks for that sterling contribution to the conversation......Capt. Obvious. Neither is the right to walk down 5th Ave. with an AR-15.

 

[berg80]

It's not going to happen. Untwist your panties

That's what was said not so many years ago about Roe being overturned. Your dismissal of Thomas's opinion makes me ask, why did he include it if not to express an intention towards something he feels should be remedied?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That's what was said not so many years ago about Roe being overturned. Your dismissal of Thomas's opinion makes me ask, why did he include it if not to express an intention towards something he feels should be remedied?

He's probably yanking your chain, Idk

But you've got the vapors over something that isn't going to happen. Relax

 

[Rogue AI]

That's what was said not so many years ago about Roe being overturned. Your dismissal of Thomas's opinion makes me ask, why did he include it if not to express an intention towards something he feels should be remedied?

True enough to destruction of Roe opens many doors, and Thomas has cause. If we are fortunate that gay marriage thing will be overturned and a great injustice and government overreach can be corrected.

 

[kaz]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

The Constitution is a living document, and it tells you how to change it. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Or a Constitutional convention. There is no 5/9 anywhere in the document, so when the SCOTUS changes the Constitution, by what authority do they do that? The answer is their own, the SCOTUS gave it to themselves.

Just to be clear, when you seem to advocate the SCOTUS changing the Constitution, do you support justices from both parties changing the Constitution on their own or just your party?

 

[scruffy]

Yep. Before the Heller decision, the second amendment was construed to mean a state regulated militia.

BULLSHIT.

You lying leftie fucktard.

Which makes the Heller decision wrongly decided, and can be overturned by a later court.

You're a leftie, I don't expect you to have any reading comprehension.

That historical precedent set by this court, will be a good pattern to be used for that very purpose in the future.

Go ahead, go for it.

lol

 

[struth]

I didn't say one was. I said Clarence and friends has set a standard by which interracial marriage, like gay marriage, because both were antithetical to beliefs at the time of the founding (read his concurring opinion in Roe), is open to being banned if a state so chooses.

no it’s not

 

[kaz]

BULLSHIT.

You lying leftie fucktard.




You're a leftie, I don't expect you to have any reading comprehension.




Go ahead, go for it.

lol

So skews13 is consistent, isn't he? He only believes guns that existed in 1776 are protected. Just like he believes that only words that existed in 1776 are protected. He says cars aren't protected from illlegal searches, cars didn't exist in 1776.

skews13 is a politically Amish. Really he's a liar, a racist and an all around idiot ...

 

[kaz]

no it’s not

Yeah, clearly Thomas is going to end same sex marriage. A picture of him and his black wife. Oh wait ...