15 ms·

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." http

by uptown 4y ago

"In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage." https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112 https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
No one was surprised.
jquery 4y ago
These are next up on the chopping block and the same logic used to overturn Roe v Wade can be used to overturn those. Thomas is merely voicing that reality instead of playing coy like other reactionary justices.
- rob74 4y ago
  Yeah, better hurry up while the conservatives still have the overwhelming majority on the court. You never know what the future brings...
- pjscott 4y ago
  Take heart! The majority ruling explicitly says that its reasoning does not apply to those, and goes into detail about why those rulings are different.
  - dwater 4y ago
    The majority also said in congressional testimony that Roe was settled, and then changed their minds when they had the power to overturn it.
- 0xfeba 4y ago
  There are, IIRC, forced sterilization laws that depended on RvW, so perhaps those are back in fashion too.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  This being a solo opinion is encouraging that they won't overturn every due process case.
giarc 4y ago
Rich given he is a black man married to a white women. Cherry picks cases for same-sex marriage but not cases allowing inter-racial marriage.
- tootallgavin 4y ago
  race is a belief
  - hemogloben 4y ago
    Not a belief, just totally consistent originalism. Well known fact the founders supported interracial marriages.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      It's a well-known fact among constitutional scholars that the founders supported abortion too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/15/abortion-history-founders-alito/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/15/abortion-h... This isn't about originalism. This is about the sitting judges' religious beliefs.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        Read that article and it does not give any founders opinion on the subject.
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        You're right. i posted the wrong article. The point of that article is that abortion was so widespread and unregulated that most founders wouldn't even think it worth their time to write down their opinion about it. This is the droid you're looking for: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank... It reiterates the thesis of the first article: "It just wasn't something to be remarked upon. It was just a part of everyday life."
AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  Wishing ill on an entire race to spite one man is not supportable.
  - AdmiralAsshat 4y ago
pastor_bob 4y ago
Holy sh*t. Lawrence v Texas? Literally banning gay sex on the mind of American Conservatives
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I occasionally wonder just how high the prevalence of closeted homosexuals is amongst conservatives, given how strongly they seem to believe that sexual preference is a choice. The only logical conclusion is that at some point they chose.
- holmium 4y ago
  Have you read (or "read"; I don't want to be responsible for your death lol) the Texas GOP platform[1] for this year? The first sentence in the "Homosexuality and Gender Issues" section is "Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice". And they follow it up with "we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality". They are rearing for another battle in the gay rights culture war. ---------- [1] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-...
echelon 4y ago
The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions. None of this is the will of the people.
- voisin 4y ago
  If I understand correctly, it now devolves to the states where elected people make the laws that apply. So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace.
  - jquery 4y ago
    The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection was supposed to end the patchwork system of having to live in the right state to be recognized as a full citizen.
  - brycewray 4y ago
    > So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace. As I just said in my chosen Mastodon instance: “Ever since today’s Supreme Court decision was leaked, some have said that this oddly might hurt the Republicans in future elections — i.e., they’ll no longer have Roe v. Wade to use against the Democrats. However, this ignores what made today possible: the power of the Christian Right, particularly those whose votes won’t be erased by some currently running for office on promising to make it harder for anti-Rightists to vote (or have their votes count).” Those of you who don’t have a lot of exposure to that culture, and the way it has completely taken over a good chunk of American politics — not to mention one of the two major U.S. political parties — in the last forty-plus years, will find today a shock. And wait ’til you see what else they have in mind.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      Won't pro-lifers still vote for Republicans in order, to, you know, legislate pro-life laws? All this decision does is place the issue back in the hands of the legislative branch, where it should always have been. Now, it's up to you to vote for what you want. Of the following two forces, the Christian right and the atheist Marxist left, I promise you the latter is far more shocking, dangerous, and self-destructive to America.
Vvector 4y ago
Thomas - "...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents" Griswold - contraceptives Lawrence - same-sex sexual relations Obergefell - same-sex marriage
- rob74 4y ago
  I hope all current Republican voters who are in a same-sex relationship or are using contraceptives remember this when they vote in November...
  - zht 4y ago
    the existence of groups like the log cabin Republicans make this seem unlikely...
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Log Cabin Republicans are no longer welcome in the party, at least not universally -- they were banned from the Texas Republican Convention.
  - cronix 4y ago
    Just like how the people who are upset about this ruling can be upset that when their party controlled all 3 branches numerous times, they never put abortion into the constitution to firmly protect it, or the other "rights" you mentioned. Instead they use it as an emotional club every election to get votes, but did nothing to protect it when they had the power to do so.
    - sseagull 4y ago
      > they never put abortion into the constitution to firmly protect it Neither party has had the votes to do that in a while (2/3rds in both the House and the Senate). It must also be ratified by 3/4ths of the states (38 right now). Not going to happen for a long time. Edit: Quick scan show the last time a party had 2/3rds majority in both was 1965-1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...)
voisin 4y ago
So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value? I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.
- 0xfeba 4y ago
  Well, poor people are less likely to be able to travel to get abortions where it's legal. So higher infant mortality, higher maternal mortality, and more kids in the foster system, putting a strain on a likely already small (because red state) budget. But otherwise, I agree, this will just further the red states' economic bankruptcy.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  I see both.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Yes, which will make the red areas redder and blue areas bluer and further perpetuate the national political division.
- maccolgan 4y ago
  How did you even think there was one America?
aftbit 4y ago
Note though that the majority opinion itself specifically calls out these cases several times as different from abortion because they do not result in the termination of a potential life. Here is one specific quote: Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey them- selves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Law- rence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” be- cause it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently dif- ferent from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procrea- tion”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision con- cerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-abortion-decision/6d8d0bf51a94203d/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-abortio...

by uptown 4y ago

zeroonetwothree 4y ago

No one was surprised.

jquery 4y ago

These are next up on the chopping block and the same logic used to overturn Roe v Wade can be used to overturn those. Thomas is merely voicing that reality instead of playing coy like other reactionary justices.

rob74 4y ago
Yeah, better hurry up while the conservatives still have the overwhelming majority on the court. You never know what the future brings...
pjscott 4y ago
Take heart! The majority ruling explicitly says that its reasoning does not apply to those, and goes into detail about why those rulings are different.
- dwater 4y ago
  The majority also said in congressional testimony that Roe was settled, and then changed their minds when they had the power to overturn it.
0xfeba 4y ago
There are, IIRC, forced sterilization laws that depended on RvW, so perhaps those are back in fashion too.
colinmhayes 4y ago
This being a solo opinion is encouraging that they won't overturn every due process case.

giarc 4y ago

Rich given he is a black man married to a white women. Cherry picks cases for same-sex marriage but not cases allowing inter-racial marriage.

tootallgavin 4y ago
race is a belief
- hemogloben 4y ago
  Not a belief, just totally consistent originalism. Well known fact the founders supported interracial marriages.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    It's a well-known fact among constitutional scholars that the founders supported abortion too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/15/abortion-history-founders-alito/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/15/abortion-h... This isn't about originalism. This is about the sitting judges' religious beliefs.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      Read that article and it does not give any founders opinion on the subject.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        You're right. i posted the wrong article. The point of that article is that abortion was so widespread and unregulated that most founders wouldn't even think it worth their time to write down their opinion about it. This is the droid you're looking for: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank... It reiterates the thesis of the first article: "It just wasn't something to be remarked upon. It was just a part of everyday life."

AdmiralAsshat 4y ago

JasonFruit 4y ago
Wishing ill on an entire race to spite one man is not supportable.
- AdmiralAsshat 4y ago

pastor_bob 4y ago

Holy sh*t. Lawrence v Texas? Literally banning gay sex on the mind of American Conservatives

rootusrootus 4y ago
I occasionally wonder just how high the prevalence of closeted homosexuals is amongst conservatives, given how strongly they seem to believe that sexual preference is a choice. The only logical conclusion is that at some point they chose.
holmium 4y ago
Have you read (or "read"; I don't want to be responsible for your death lol) the Texas GOP platform[1] for this year? The first sentence in the "Homosexuality and Gender Issues" section is "Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice". And they follow it up with "we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality". They are rearing for another battle in the gay rights culture war. ---------- [1] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-...

echelon 4y ago

The Supreme Court positions to be elected positions. None of this is the will of the people.

voisin 4y ago
If I understand correctly, it now devolves to the states where elected people make the laws that apply. So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace.
- jquery 4y ago
  The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection was supposed to end the patchwork system of having to live in the right state to be recognized as a full citizen.
- brycewray 4y ago
  > So the issue is really what the hell is wrong with the states where the people elected feel empowered to take rights away from half their populace. As I just said in my chosen Mastodon instance: “Ever since today’s Supreme Court decision was leaked, some have said that this oddly might hurt the Republicans in future elections — i.e., they’ll no longer have Roe v. Wade to use against the Democrats. However, this ignores what made today possible: the power of the Christian Right, particularly those whose votes won’t be erased by some currently running for office on promising to make it harder for anti-Rightists to vote (or have their votes count).” Those of you who don’t have a lot of exposure to that culture, and the way it has completely taken over a good chunk of American politics — not to mention one of the two major U.S. political parties — in the last forty-plus years, will find today a shock. And wait ’til you see what else they have in mind.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    Won't pro-lifers still vote for Republicans in order, to, you know, legislate pro-life laws? All this decision does is place the issue back in the hands of the legislative branch, where it should always have been. Now, it's up to you to vote for what you want. Of the following two forces, the Christian right and the atheist Marxist left, I promise you the latter is far more shocking, dangerous, and self-destructive to America.

Vvector 4y ago

Thomas - "...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents" Griswold - contraceptives Lawrence - same-sex sexual relations Obergefell - same-sex marriage

rob74 4y ago
I hope all current Republican voters who are in a same-sex relationship or are using contraceptives remember this when they vote in November...
- zht 4y ago
  the existence of groups like the log cabin Republicans make this seem unlikely...
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Log Cabin Republicans are no longer welcome in the party, at least not universally -- they were banned from the Texas Republican Convention.
- cronix 4y ago
  Just like how the people who are upset about this ruling can be upset that when their party controlled all 3 branches numerous times, they never put abortion into the constitution to firmly protect it, or the other "rights" you mentioned. Instead they use it as an emotional club every election to get votes, but did nothing to protect it when they had the power to do so.
  - sseagull 4y ago
    > they never put abortion into the constitution to firmly protect it Neither party has had the votes to do that in a while (2/3rds in both the House and the Senate). It must also be ratified by 3/4ths of the states (38 right now). Not going to happen for a long time. Edit: Quick scan show the last time a party had 2/3rds majority in both was 1965-1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...)

voisin 4y ago

So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value? I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.

0xfeba 4y ago
Well, poor people are less likely to be able to travel to get abortions where it's legal. So higher infant mortality, higher maternal mortality, and more kids in the foster system, putting a strain on a likely already small (because red state) budget. But otherwise, I agree, this will just further the red states' economic bankruptcy.
aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
I see both.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Yes, which will make the red areas redder and blue areas bluer and further perpetuate the national political division.
maccolgan 4y ago
How did you even think there was one America?

aftbit 4y ago

Note though that the majority opinion itself specifically calls out these cases several times as different from abortion because they do not result in the termination of a potential life. Here is one specific quote: Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey them- selves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Law- rence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” be- cause it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently dif- ferent from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procrea- tion”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision con- cerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-abortion-decision/6d8d0bf51a94203d/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-abortio...