8 ms·
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.
by 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 agorace is a belief
- hemogloben 4y agoNot a belief, just totally consistent originalism. Well known fact the founders supported interracial marriages.
- lern_too_spel 4y agoIt'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 agoRead that article and it does not give any founders opinion on the subject.
- lern_too_spel 4y agoYou'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."
- tootallgavin 4y agoThe concentration of melanin in one's skin is not important
- foodforthots 4y agoPrincipal component analysis over genotypes and phenotypes inevitably reveals major differences along the axes commonly known as race.
- judge2020 4y agoFor reference, his opinion stated "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents", while: > Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
- zeroonetwothree 4y agoI think it’s fair to say it’s not clear that without substantive due process Loving would have been ruled the same.
- cryptonector 4y agoWell, it's doubtful that Thomas wouldn't find a way to sustain the ruling in Loving w/o using substantive due process. I mean, for obvious reasons.
- treis 4y agoEqual protection is not substantive due process. Gay marriage & interracial marriage are on far firmer ground because of the right to "equal protection of the laws". Not that the conservative wing won't try but they're going to have to torture logic to do it. Substantive due process is far shakier. It's Justices deciding what rights they think people should have and then working backwards as best they can to justify them. The back to back gun rights & abortion rulings lays it bare. There's just no intellectually honest way of finding a right to an abortion but not a right to bear arms. IMHO, the substantive due process was the wrong way about this. It was a shaky foundation and as more rights were found the logic got shakier. They should have used the right to peacefully assemble and based most of these substantive due process cases on them.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"they're going to have to torture logic to do it" This is literally 99% of a Supreme Court justice's job.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- HideousKojima 4y agoIn Thomas's mind, one has long-standing historical precedence where the other doesn't. Interracial marriage has existed for pretty much all of human history (though race as a concept likely didn't, at least not the way it is perceived in modern times). Heck you even have Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman and his siblings spoke out against him over it and were punished by God for it (see Numbers chapter 12). Gay marriage, on the other hand, has near zero historical precedence outside of a few cases with Roman emperors and stuff like that.
- celticninja 4y agoSlavery has historical precedence. Wtf does that matter?
- gjsman-1000 4y agoWell... we actually have a constitutional amendment directly banning slavery, and no such amendment for interracial marriages which are never mentioned constitutionally. It's easy to resolve from a purely constitutional perspective.
- Ancapistani 4y agoFrom a purely judicial perspective, slavery is explicitly abolished in the US Constitution, via amendment. The approach that Thomas favors is "text, history, and tradition". The words - as written - taken in light of what the author(s) intended and what was happening at the time.
- bigmattystyles 4y ago
- throwaway5752 4y agoIt's an interesting sub-case of Dunning-Kruger that people with consciences and integrity try to shame people like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito about hypocrisy. They project onto them attributes they do not care about; their logic is that Loving impacts Thomas and Griswold, Olbergefell, and Lawrence do not. They dislike gay people and feminists, and things that hurt them are good. Things that hurt them are bad. Just look at the stunning hypocrisy on Bruen. It says in plain English: "well regulated militia", and they can't infer a right to regulate firearms by states there... but they can't find a right for a basic medical procedure in the Due Process Clause. I'm not being uncharitable, just read the majority decision. They can't hide behind inconsequential dissents now, their shitty jurisprudence is front and center. They can't argue on merits, so they appeal to a prior history that never existed. It is an embarrassing episode for those of us that follow Supreme Court decisions, and it's a tragic episode for those whose human rights they are taking away (and their loved ones).
- anon291 4y agoEqual protection cannot protect that which is unequal. For example, I doubt an equal protection challenge to unequal lengths of maternity / paternity leave would stand, given the obvious difference in what's happening. The sexes, when it comes to things like business participation and innovation, may be equal in ability. However, if one views marriage as a precursor to reproduction -- the historical view of marriage -- then it's quite clear that the sexes are not equal, whereas the races (for whatever conception of race you have) are. It has been abundantly clear to everyone that a black man can impregnate a white woman. And a black woman can have children with a white man. If this act (reproduction) is what marriage is about, then the sexes are not equal, and thus not worthy of equal protection. A man cannot impregnate a man. Whereas, any race can impregnate / be impregnated by any other race as far as we can tell. If you have evidence to the contrary (that both sexes are identical when it comes to reproduction, which is the historical view of marriage Thomas may adhere to; or that various races cannot interbreed), then please do share.
- AlexandrB 4y agoBy this logic, should marriage between a man and a woman who cannot conceive be protected? Why or why not? > However, if one views marriage as a precursor to reproduction -- the historical view of marriage... The historical purpose of marriage is the exchange/pursuit of status and resources[1]. Reproduction was an inevitable outcome of lack of contraceptives. The idea of reproduction being the primary purpose of marriage is pretty recent. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200505/marriage-history https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200505/marriage-...
- anon291 4y ago'Cannot conceive' is a difficult definition, since you can't know until you've tried in many circumstances. Historically in the West, consummation of the marriage rendered it permanent. But anyway. Historically, and actually still today, if you have actual reasons you can't conceive (for example, if a man cannot get an erection due to permanent and incurable impotence), then yes, the marriage can be declared anulled. Annulment is different from divorce because it makes it such that the marriage never existed at all at anytime. In other words, yes, certain conditions preventing conception can be used to claim that a marriage was fraudulent. In certain legal jurisdictions, a castrated man cannot marry. While that may not always be true today, it has been the case historically. Prior to the modern day, people did operate under the assumption that those who certainly could not conceive could not marry, but of course, they didn't have the full understanding of conception we do. > The historical purpose of marriage is the exchange/pursuit of status and resources Yes, and the purpose of status and resources is to pass those along to your children. Also your article mainly talks about 'love' and marriage not reproduction. > The idea of reproduction being the primary purpose of marriage is pretty recent. This is completely baseless. Thomas Aquinas writes about the purpose of marriage as being for procreation. Given that at the time he wrote he represented an organization that represented the majority of moral thought in Europe... it's hard to actually believe these ridiculous claims. Moreover, status and resources were the main pursuit of the rich. The poor still married... usually for kids. Source: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm > It would seem that the "sacrament" is not the chief of the marriage goods. For the end is principal in everything. Now the end of marriage is the offspring. Therefore the offspring is the chief marriage good. Given that Aquinas is also pulling from historical sources (in this cases the Sentences by Peter Lombard), it's extremely likely this idea -- written very clearly in the 13th century -- originated well before then. What's modern is the claim that the chief aim of marriage in previous centuries was status / resources. Everyone in previous centuries understood that the way in which marriage produced those goods was children. A woman from one family marrying into another noble family would have little claim over her new status if the couple were unable to produce offspring. If a man had no offspring to inherit, the status and resources would end. MORE SOURCES FROM EVEN EARLIER In the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo clearly indicates in his treatise 'On the Good of Marriage' that offspring are one of three benefits of marriage (along with faithfulness and the sacrament of matrimony itself). In the summa, Aquinas attempts to argue which of these is the 'chief' good of marriage. Thomas believes the sacrament of matrimony itself is the chief good. Now, most here don't necessarily have the religious view of marriage (nor do they need to), but aside from the sacrament, it's faithfulness and offspring that remain. Nowhere there is status and power. And these men are again writing on the predominant moral system of the Western world for the past thousand years. Going to secular philosophers, Aristotle (from whom Aquinas derived a lot) also consistently writes that marriage is for children. His other aims of marriage are community stability and pleasure. Again, nowhere does status and power appear.