5 ms·

Thomas - "...in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. ... w

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...)
    - noasaservice 4y ago
      The number you're looking for is 3/5 . And they did codify that one. The founders had no qualms about strongly disenfranchising people. The founders were NOT good people by any measurement.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    Your comment trivializes how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. An amendment on an issue this polarizing would never get the requisite support from enough states, no to mention that it doesn’t even matter if you control three branches of government to pass an amendment, only Congress is involved in the process.
    - toyg 4y ago
      The political point is valid, though. There have been multiple windows for Democrats to pass federal laws that would have helped solidify these rights. Nothing was done, because cultural arguments help both sides in the electoral theatre.
      - wbsss4412 4y ago
        Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress. Do you really think that a Republican controlled Congress for the majority of the 2010s would have allowed such a law to remain on the books?
        toyg 4y ago
        > such a law would be superfluous Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? The books are full of them. > such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. Politicians are ready to go with the flow... see for example gay marriage in the UK, which was cautiously introduced by Labour as a separate formulation and then brought into full existence, with great fanfare, by a Conservative Party that had been staunchly against it for decades prior.
        wbsss4412 4y ago
        > Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? A comment ago you were complaining about political theater, how is passing superfluous laws anything but political theater? > Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. This suggests to me that you aren’t very familiar with the last 50 years of American political history.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

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...)
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    The number you're looking for is 3/5 . And they did codify that one. The founders had no qualms about strongly disenfranchising people. The founders were NOT good people by any measurement.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  Your comment trivializes how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. An amendment on an issue this polarizing would never get the requisite support from enough states, no to mention that it doesn’t even matter if you control three branches of government to pass an amendment, only Congress is involved in the process.
  - toyg 4y ago
    The political point is valid, though. There have been multiple windows for Democrats to pass federal laws that would have helped solidify these rights. Nothing was done, because cultural arguments help both sides in the electoral theatre.
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      Except it isn’t valid, because while there was a Supreme Court precedent, such a law would be superfluous, and while there now isn’t, such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress. Do you really think that a Republican controlled Congress for the majority of the 2010s would have allowed such a law to remain on the books?
      - toyg 4y ago
        > such a law would be superfluous Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? The books are full of them. > such a law would’ve be repealed the moment republicans regain control of the congress Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. Politicians are ready to go with the flow... see for example gay marriage in the UK, which was cautiously introduced by Labour as a separate formulation and then brought into full existence, with great fanfare, by a Conservative Party that had been staunchly against it for decades prior.
        wbsss4412 4y ago
        > Do you really think no superfluous law is ever passed...? A comment ago you were complaining about political theater, how is passing superfluous laws anything but political theater? > Maybe, or maybe it would have increased Democratic majorities and forced Republicans to face a politically dangerous repeal or even a major policy switch. This suggests to me that you aren’t very familiar with the last 50 years of American political history.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]