3 ms·

> And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned.

> And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. Oh you read the whole judgement? Perhaps you missed this nugget on page 118 > For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Are you going to amend your comment now?

Rebelgecko 4y ago
If that's not from the majority opinion, how much does it actually matter?
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Thomas wasn't part of the majority? He wrote a concurring opinion - he agrees with the main decision and went out of his way to further explain his thoughts, including that he disagrees with any of the rights created under the auspices of due process. But, he conveniently left Loving v Virginia off the list, which was also decided (partially) on due process grounds - I guess he's not quite so sure about his principles that he'd blow up his own marriage.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    He also lives in DC, so even if he did rule that the states have the right to criminalize interracial marriages, HIS is unlikely to be affected.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Nope, he and Ginny live in VA.
- paulmd 4y ago
  quite a bit, the votes are likely there to overturn those things as well. what thomas did is a little gauche, the court generally avoids opining on cases that aren't actually in front of them because the facts and specifics of the case matter, but, yeah, the votes are probably there, thomas just likes to say the quiet part out loud. who do you think is going to vote against it? thomas, who has outright stated he's a yes? kavanaugh, who said roe was "settled law"? Barrett, the actual handmaiden cultist? Alito?
  - eropple 4y ago
    I think, realistically, we're holding out for Gorsuch and Roberts to not be monsters, and I think we will be disappointed.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

If that's not from the majority opinion, how much does it actually matter?

alistairSH 4y ago
Thomas wasn't part of the majority? He wrote a concurring opinion - he agrees with the main decision and went out of his way to further explain his thoughts, including that he disagrees with any of the rights created under the auspices of due process. But, he conveniently left Loving v Virginia off the list, which was also decided (partially) on due process grounds - I guess he's not quite so sure about his principles that he'd blow up his own marriage.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  He also lives in DC, so even if he did rule that the states have the right to criminalize interracial marriages, HIS is unlikely to be affected.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Nope, he and Ginny live in VA.
paulmd 4y ago
quite a bit, the votes are likely there to overturn those things as well. what thomas did is a little gauche, the court generally avoids opining on cases that aren't actually in front of them because the facts and specifics of the case matter, but, yeah, the votes are probably there, thomas just likes to say the quiet part out loud. who do you think is going to vote against it? thomas, who has outright stated he's a yes? kavanaugh, who said roe was "settled law"? Barrett, the actual handmaiden cultist? Alito?
- eropple 4y ago
  I think, realistically, we're holding out for Gorsuch and Roberts to not be monsters, and I think we will be disappointed.