why are democrats directing the majority of their vitriol at Justice Thomas over the Roe V Wade ruling ?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Naw buddy, you bigots tried that shit once and got your asses beat into submission, you keep trying to crawl back but it'll just happen again. No ones harming your children but you, and when they grow up and cut contact you don't learn a damn thing because you're brains too smooth to grow. No offense bigot but LGBTQ+ people have been around since before your DNA cursed this Earth. The only freak show I know is the slack jawed inbred idiots who clutch their pearls so hard at people doing their own thing because some stupid book and some dumb bigot on a stand told 'em it's an Gods will.

Like I said enjoy your slow, hilarious slide into the history books, and I sure hope your short sighted hatred doesn't poison too many more innocent kids.

You people hate kids. If you can't kill them in the womb, you try to pervert them in public school.

I don't care what anybody does in their private life as long as 1) what they are doing is legal. 2) what they are doing is bringing no harm to anybody else. 3) Don't tell me about it and keep your private life private. The problem with people like you is you want to force acceptance on people. You expect that the rest of America should just accept your disgusting ways and exploit our children. We won't have it.

You will never be accepted by normal people. True, we are forced into laws we don't want, but the people that hate you today are the same people that hated you 30 years ago. Nothing has changed.

I'm sure you guys would do so well banging your rocks together, the only thing you'd be saving anyone from is your annoying ideas. But as everyone points out every time ya'll wouldn't last too long anyway, and it'd probably go about as well as the last time a bunch of people tried to drag their feet on progress. Can't wait for the time that people like you and the other one are a laughingstock like the ones who still fly the Confederate Flags.

Oh, so you object to people flying their confederate flag but not you kissing some guy in public. Well there you go. It's a perfect reason to split this country once and for all. Well guess what, nobody is moving to NYC or CA. Those people are moving to our states with our annoying ideas. But it's like I've always said, you're not a true leftist unless you are trying to destroy things other people have.

 

[woodwork201]

Correct. the decision does not take rights away from women, it leaves it up to the states to determine if the baby inside the womb, is also considered human and also has some right to life.

The decision does remove the false claim that there was a right. It doesn't return the question of the right to the states, it returns the question of the law to the states. There is no right for a woman to kill her unborn child.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

from prominent leftist celebrities to the leaders in the dem party and commentators on the msm the majority of anger over the SC decision on Roe V Wade is being directed at Clarence Thomas ? hes been vilified by everyone from Samuel Jackson ,Whoopi Goldberg , Hillary and Lightfoot ... and they all know that he wasnt the author of the recent Roe opinion ! Justice Alito not Thomas was the author of the majority opinion that was used to argue for the overturning Roe V Wade ! while i agree and applaud with the courts decision i find it strange that dems seem to be angrier at a black man [Thomas] that agreed with the opinion written by a white man Alito ! is this proof that dems absolutely abhor any black man that has independent thought that doesnt comply with there point of view more than they would dislike a white man that doesnt hold their views ? with the vicious attacks being leveled at Thomas it would seem so ...

Read the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade

The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito.

www.politico.com

It’s very simple. To leftists, the color of one’s skin dictates how they should think. Justice Thomas is a free thinker.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s very simple. To leftists, the color of one’s skin dictates how they should think. Justice Thomas is a free thinker.

they made that mistake with Hispanics and it's costing them dearly. They're minorities. Give them things and they will vote for us, just like the blacks do.

 

[woodwork201]

The attacks against Clarence go way back before the recent decisions

MSN

For years, Democrats have attacked Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, for being involved in conservative politics. The goal has always been the same: to discredit the justice and force him out of the Supreme Court.

In 2010, they railed against Ginni Thomas’s decision to form a Tea Party-linked group and argued the Tea Party had “infiltrated” the Supreme Court. A few years later, they slammed her for opposing Obamacare and demanded that Clarence Thomas recuse himself from hearing a challenge to the healthcare law. In both cases, ethical experts and Thomas’s own colleagues, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer, made it clear that Ginni Thomas’s beliefs and involvement in Republican politics had no bearing on Clarence Thomas’s ability to do his job.



“This is a false issue in my mind,” Breyer said back in 2011. “A wife or husband is an independent person, and they make up their own minds what their career is going to be,” he added, noting that his own wife’s career as a psychologist did not stop him from sitting on cases involving psychology.
Breyer’s comments are worth bearing in mind as the Democrats launch yet another attack against Ginni and Clarence Thomas, this time because Ginni Thomas dared to hold a controversial opinion about the 2020 presidential election that millions of people happen to share.
After the election, she reportedly encouraged then-chief of staff Mark Meadows to challenge the results and expose alleged voter fraud by Democrats so that President Joe Biden’s win would be overturned. She voiced her support for Sidney Powell, a pro-Trump attorney who claimed to have evidence of this widespread fraud, and told Meadows that Trump should refuse to concede.
To be clear, these text messages from Ginni Thomas were crazy and conspiratorial and reflect poorly on her. But in no way do they indicate that Clarence Thomas was a part of some grand conspiracy to keep Trump in office or that he used his position to run cover for his wife, as Democrats are now claiming.


The Left is arguing that Ginni Thomas’s text messages are directly related to a Supreme Court case involving a tranche of documents regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot that Trump sued to keep secret from the National Archives. Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter who sided with Trump. His dissent, according to leftists, is evidence that he knew about his wife’s correspondence with the White House and wanted to keep it secret, which Democrats are arguing is cause for impeachment.
But here’s the problem: There is no evidence, none, that Ginni Thomas’s text messages were a part of the National Archives documents in question. In fact, there is much more evidence that they were not. According to the Washington Post, these messages were among the thousands of documents that Meadows voluntarily handed over to the Jan. 6 congressional committee when he was initially cooperating with their investigation. In other words, her messages were not among the documents Clarence Thomas ruled should not be released to the committee.
Democrats have also argued that a dissenting opinion Thomas wrote in response to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision regarding the 2020 election was proof that he shared the same beliefs as his wife. This, too, is untrue. Thomas’s argument was that the Pennsylvania case provided the court with an “ideal opportunity” to address election law and whether state lawmakers or state courts get the final say in how federal elections are carried out. His concern was with the legality of the election process — not with its outcome in 2020.
Indeed, Thomas had several opportunities to question the results of the 2020 election if he had wanted to. But each time Trump tried to bring his case before the Supreme Court, the justices turned him away without one dissent.
The attacks against the Thomases are dishonest but deliberate. The Left hates Clarence Thomas because he gets in the way of their agenda, and they have made it quite clear they will do anything to get rid of him — even if they have to accuse him of sexual harassment, dismiss him as a race traitor, insult his wife, and smear him with false allegations of corruption.
It’s what they’ve been doing for decades. Thank God it hasn’t worked.

It seems that the left only want liberal women to have a vote or a say in politics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because Thomas is the Nazi ringleader on the Supreme Court. He is also gleeful about going after other rights.

If Thomas were the "democrat ringleader on the Supreme Court." you filthy vermin would love him.

Thomas is black, and doesn't know his place. You of the Reich won't stand for "those kind" getting uppity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Naw buddy, you bigots tried that shit once and got your asses beat into submission,

Actually we DEFEATED you and made you give up your slaves.

democrats never change - from Jackson and trail of tears, you've been scum - and scum you remain.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It seems that the left only want liberal women to have a vote or a say in politics.

democrats don't want women to exist at all.

Erase and Replace is the agenda of the Nazi democrats.

 

[woodwork201]

All you need to know about why Thomas is being singled out is to read his opinions.

Alito and all the other conservatives said that the Dobbs case only effected abortion, (Roe / Casey) and no other cases.
Thomas said the Dobbs decision sets up reversing other cases like Obergerfell, Lawrence, Griswold, Loving et al.

Those two statements, Alito and Thomas, are not mutually exclusive. Dobbs didn't reverse homosexual marriages. Alito stands. That made up rights aren't Federal issues, or even 9th Amendment rights are not Federal issues, is also correct so those other cases can be challenged. Thomas is right.

Homosexual marriage is not overturned by Dobbs but Dobbs can be input to other, future, cases.

 

[woodwork201]

This portion of his concurring opinion was why he was lambasted more so than the others:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Page 119

Since substantive due process was a made-up argument from the 20th century, all substantive due process decisions MUST be overturned when challenged.

 

[BackAgain]

why are democrats directing the majority of their vitriol at Justice Thomas over the Roe V Wade ruling ?​

Because the Democrap Party is quite racist and Justice Thomas is not only a black man but one who thinks for himself and rejects their plantation commands.

 

[woodwork201]

The right to privacy yidnar.... It's pretty important to everyone's liberty, not to have the govt intrude in to our private decisions and lives....a multitude of autonomous decisions that we all make, daily, without thought, can be stripped from us, without the right to govern ourselves and our bodies in personal, private matters.... there is no liberty or freedom to choose..... Even God gave us freewill, and has let us, make our own mistakes....and pay for our own mistakes.... or be rewarded when we choose correctly, or come to repentance. Live and learn.

It would be the most awesome thing if abortions went down to zero because girls all wanted to have their babies, or all guys stepped up and offered marriage, or all girls were on birth control and it worked 100%, or girls abstain from sex till marriage....

But for big government to make that decision for a citizen, is appalling to me. It rings fundamentally wrong, in every way. I've never known life, where Roe and Casey and our privacy rights were not in place... since puberty or high school.

I believe there is a right to privacy but how can you translate the right to privacy into a right to kill your unborn child?

The Constitution is very, very, clear, though, that the protections of the Constitution are only those explicit rights named in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment allows that there are other rights and the 10th Amendment says that power over those rights goes to the State or to the people. The right to privacy must be decided in the states and according to the States constitutions and laws. And that's all the Supreme Court said.

 

[woodwork201]

democrats don't want women to exist at all.

Erase and Replace is the agenda of the Nazi democrats.

View attachment 675200

Can we just ban all pictures of that thing?

 

[woodwork201]

But for big government to make that decision for a citizen, is appalling to me. It rings fundamentally wrong, in every way. I've never known life, where Roe and Casey and our privacy rights were not in place... since puberty or high school.

The Federal government didn't make that decision for anyone.

And your privacy rights were never in place and were never stripped. There is no constitutionally protected right to privacy at the federal level. Call your state representative.

And, unlike your complaint that you never knew life without Roe, 63 million babies never knew life because of Roe.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Thomas does not follow the Communist platform. He is looked at as a traitor by the left. He's brilliant, black, and not supposed to be a conservative. Blacks are supposed to be the sole property of the Democrat party, no questions asked. How dare you desert us after all we did for you? You owe us your life! You'd be busing tables today if not for us Democrats!

‘If you don’t vote for *Joe, you ain’t black.’

Pretty much shatters all leftists counter arguments.

 

[woodwork201]

Legislators put a lot of thought in the laws they write. If they write them and pass them, there must be a good reason.

Well, that's an absurd argument. Legislators haven't written a law in decades. Legislators get invited to big events at great expense and get sample legislation from the deep state. Look at any law in your state and it will almost always match, with few if any small variations, exactly what's in virtually every other state.

The good reason idea is even worse. Yes, there's a good reason but you're not it. Your interests are not that reason. The deep state operatives who created the legislation are those whose interests are served in every case.

 

[woodwork201]

No, of course not....! At 6 months your baby is viable, if not medically deformed in some way!

You do know that most abortions occur at 10 weeks, and almost all before 12 weeks, not 25 weeks, and women are not showing?

I wouldn't know a girl is expecting at 10 weeks, the girl herself would barely know it.

A six-month-old baby is certainly not viable without extensive support of other human beings, sort of like a 6 week old baby in the womb.

 

[woodwork201]

Jesus Christ you unoriginal bible thumping dumb dumbs and the new grooming line. You must be grooming these kids to be straight then, poor you, groomed to kill the little gay kid you could have been. Stop trying to dress it up, just say Gay people make you feel icky and then we can call you a cave person like we do the Racists.

I absolutely groom my children to be straight, educated, successful and to love God.

Ah yes, all the LGBTQ+ people fucking in the streets, finding all you poor victimized Religious people and just getting saucy in front of you...as opposed to just kissing in your general vicinity like their normal people.

The site rules will not allow me to post the links to things like the Folsom Street Fair. But they will let me post the rate of infections of monkeypox, a mostly male-to-male-sexually-transmitted disease. I don't want my children in either of these stories, thankyouverymuch.

Who freaking cares what Marriage was, its what it is that matters- and it ain't at all just religious anymore. Time to come to terms with reality my guy, Bible thumpin bigots don't get to dictate who gets married anymore.

Before Gorsuch changed the meaning of Sex, you didn't take the standard of what marriage is, did you? You wanted it redefined to allow you to pretend your own homosexual relationship was equally important in life as was generations of actual parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on.

Not sure how you'd get that, all things considered they'd most probably be on the side that fought to you know...change the laws that made interracial marriage legal everywhere in the united states. Bigots lost then, they lost once more with gay Marriage and they'll keep losing because...that's what bigots do best.


The only thing destroying Christianity is how dumb people like you make it look by trying to paint normal people as some kind of devil. Enjoy your slow, sad sink into the history books. Too bad your parents decided to teach you to be like this, no critical thinking skills and worst of all no compassion...or common damned sense.

What "normal" person did I try to paint as some kind of devil? You'll never find where I did that.

 

[yidnar]

The Federal government didn't make that decision for anyone.

And your privacy rights were never in place and were never stripped. There is no constitutionally protected right to privacy at the federal level. Call your state representative.

And, unlike your complaint that you never knew life without Roe, 63 million babies never knew life because of Roe.

so many little ones killed .... so many little ones never given the chance at life ...

 

[Care4all]

I believe there is a right to privacy but how can you translate the right to privacy into a right to kill your unborn child?

The Constitution is very, very, clear, though, that the protections of the Constitution are only those explicit rights named in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment allows that there are other rights and the 10th Amendment says that power over those rights goes to the State or to the people. The right to privacy must be decided in the states and according to the States constitutions and laws. And that's all the Supreme Court said.

It goes to the State OR it goes to the People.... In this case of privacy, it would be reserved for the People, and not for the State to decide.....up and to the point of say....quickening...