What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

skews13

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,800
Reaction score
6,641
Points
2,065
BULLSHIT.

You lying leftie fucktard. :p




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

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,968
Reaction score
11,542
Points
2,250
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.
 
OP
berg80

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
8,046
Reaction score
4,889
Points
970
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

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
1,718
Points
250
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,968
Reaction score
11,542
Points
2,250
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
71,323
Reaction score
18,167
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
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 ...
 
OP
berg80

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
8,046
Reaction score
4,889
Points
970
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.
 
OP
berg80

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
8,046
Reaction score
4,889
Points
970
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,968
Reaction score
11,542
Points
2,250
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
22,941
Reaction score
14,017
Points
1,288
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,823
Points
1,893
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,968
Reaction score
11,542
Points
2,250
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

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

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
 
OP
berg80

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
8,046
Reaction score
4,889
Points
970
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.

...........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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
99,388
Reaction score
39,060
Points
2,250
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,671
Reaction score
50,634
Points
2,330
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
99,388
Reaction score
39,060
Points
2,250
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

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
5,517
Reaction score
1,718
Points
250
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.

...........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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
99,388
Reaction score
39,060
Points
2,250
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

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
12,708
Reaction score
5,078
Points
325
Location
Texas Republic

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
19,335
Reaction score
8,749
Points
970
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.

.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top