The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[skews13]

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

Once the make up of the court changes, count on it.

And what exactly are you going to do when the ruling doesn't go in your favor?

Before you answer, just make sure you know the Congress just gave Justices extra protections at their homes. You know, in case you thought you might intimidate one with a gun.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.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.

Ha ha ha just ONE SCOTUS justice made that statement, you have any of the other justice's saying the same thing.

 

[berg80]

He's probably yanking your chain, Idk

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

The only thing I'm certain of is Thomas won't vote for the repeal of interracial marriage to be allowed. Beyond that it appears the agenda on the court's right wing extremists knows no bounds.

 

[Leweman]

Why do democrats OP threads always end in embarrassment for them? Yeesh. It's like they don't even want to win an argument, knowing they can just steal an election.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

Roe/Wade has long been considered a bad decision by many that is why the inevitable happened.

 

[kaz]

Once the make up of the court changes, count on it.

And what exactly are you going to do when the ruling doesn't go in your favor?

Before you answer, just make sure you know the Congress just gave Justices extra protections at their homes. You know, in case you thought you might intimidate one with a gun.

Republicans are going to do what Democrats are going to do, stack the court. You thought it only goes one way? LOL, dumb ass racist ...

 

[berg80]

Ha ha ha just ONE SCOTUS justice made that statement, you have any of the other justice's saying the same thing.

The principle the Roe case was erroneously decided on opens up Pandora's box. The wise course for progressives is to assume the worst since the worst is natural impulse of this court's majority.

 

[berg80]

Roe/Wade has long been considered a bad decision by many that is why the inevitable happened.

There was nothing inevitable about it. Yes, it was considered a bad decision by the minority who wanted it overturned.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The principle the Roe case was erroneously decided on opens up Pandora's box. The wise course for progressives is to assume the worst since the worst is natural impulse of this court's majority.

Then you have nothing since Roberts and probably Kavanaugh would never support it anyway.

You worry too easily.

 

[struth]

There was nothing inevitable about it. Yes, it was considered a bad decision by the minority who wanted it overturned.

no even RBG said it was poorly decided.

 

[scruffy]

Once the make up of the court changes, count on it.

And what exactly are you going to do when the ruling doesn't go in your favor?

Before you answer, just make sure you know the Congress just gave Justices extra protections at their homes. You know, in case you thought you might intimidate one with a gun.

Only a dumbass leftard would say something this stupid. ^^^

I don't threaten children, shit for brains. I don't threaten families. I don't do home invasions. What the fuck is the matter with you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

There was nothing inevitable about it. Yes, it was considered a bad decision by the minority who wanted it overturned.

It was considered a bad decision by RBG herself as shown here:

University of Chicago

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit​

Meredith Heagney
May 15, 2013

Excerpt:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit​

Meredith Heagney
May 15, 2013

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

LINK

 

[berg80]

Why do democrats OP threads always end in embarrassment for them? Yeesh. It's like they don't even want to win an argument, knowing they can just steal an election.

Embarrassment for me? Am I right that you just implied Biden stole the election? If not what does your last sentence refer to?

As for the subject of the thread...........

The basic argument in Alito’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is that there is no explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” in order to qualify for constitutional protection. Abortion, he argues, does not pass this test.

Could Clarence Thomas’s Dobbs concurrence signal a future attack on LGBTQ rights?

Samuel Alito’s majority opinion striking down Roe v. Wade insists LGBTQ rights are safe. Thomas’s disturbing concurrence exposes the incoherence of that claim.

www.vox.com

...........what enumerated right or anything “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” gives people the right to interracially marry? You know, since it was illegal until Loving v Virginia in 1967?

 

[2aguy]

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.

No...it never did......but thanks for lying....you should actually read Heller...or have someone read it to you......Scalia goes through the entire history of the law on guns......

 

[miketx]

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.

You're a good little commie aren't you?

 

[2aguy]

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

That would be the "bear arms," part of the Bill of Rights, under 2nd Amendment.....

 

[Leweman]

Embarrassment for me? Am I right that you just implied Biden stole the election? If not what does your last sentence refer to?

As for the subject of the thread...........

The basic argument in Alito’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is that there is no explicit constitutional protection for abortion rights, and that any right not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” in order to qualify for constitutional protection. Abortion, he argues, does not pass this test.

Could Clarence Thomas’s Dobbs concurrence signal a future attack on LGBTQ rights?

Samuel Alito’s majority opinion striking down Roe v. Wade insists LGBTQ rights are safe. Thomas’s disturbing concurrence exposes the incoherence of that claim.

www.vox.com

...........what enumerated right or anything “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” gives people the right to interracially marry? You know, since it was illegal until Loving v Virginia in 1967?

He stole the election. No one argues that anymore. We are talking about the medias proven lies changing the outcome.

 

[2aguy]

Once the make up of the court changes, count on it.

And what exactly are you going to do when the ruling doesn't go in your favor?

Before you answer, just make sure you know the Congress just gave Justices extra protections at their homes. You know, in case you thought you might intimidate one with a gun.

The only side intimidating people with guns are you guys...at the Republican baseball game, at Kavanaugh's house, in Dallas where the blm guy murdered 6 police officers....

We vote morons like you out of office...

 

[JWBooth]

I didn't say one was.

So, you’re just jacking off in public

 

[BlackSand]

Once the make up of the court changes, count on it.

And what exactly are you going to do when the ruling doesn't go in your favor?

Before you answer, just make sure you know the Congress just gave Justices extra protections at their homes. You know, in case you thought you might intimidate one with a gun.

.

Thanks ... Excellent example of a vapid position.

The composition of the Supreme Court will never grant the Court the ability to Legislate from the bench.
Whatever anyone favors, will never change an accurate interpretation of the Constitution.

Justices are not elected Politicians and are not required to represent the People.

.​