3 ms·

It's hardly speculation. Go read Clarence Thomas' opinion. He did not mince words.

jka 4y ago
Relevant quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 (a few days ago) 'Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" - referencing three landmark decisions of the past on the right to contraception, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage respectively.'
Spivak 4y ago
It's both funny and sad to see Thomas basically say he wants to gut pretty much all decisions based on the right to privacy and then explicitly carve himself an exception for the interracial marriage decision because vague "well this one has historical precedent" (as if people weren't gay, or having butt sex before 1776). It really shows that he decided he wanted to overturn Roe, worked backwards and then realized this decision might affect him.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  Loving v Virginia didn’t cite a right to privacy in its decision. It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.
  - beej71 4y ago
    > It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. How can one then go after same-sex marriage?
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      Good question. Keep in mind that this is only Thomas who is publicly stating this position. The basis for Obergefell is much broader than what was just overturned with roe, and so I would consider it on firmer legal footing than roe was, alito alluded to as much in his opinion. At the same time all it takes is 5 votes to win a case, so who knows.
  - Miner49er 4y ago
    I didn't think Obergefell mentioned the right to privacy either?
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      It was based on a right to marry and equal protection, but did make a reference to a right to privacy as well: > "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges?wprov=sft...

jka 4y ago

Relevant quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 (a few days ago) 'Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" - referencing three landmark decisions of the past on the right to contraception, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage respectively.'

Spivak 4y ago

It's both funny and sad to see Thomas basically say he wants to gut pretty much all decisions based on the right to privacy and then explicitly carve himself an exception for the interracial marriage decision because vague "well this one has historical precedent" (as if people weren't gay, or having butt sex before 1776). It really shows that he decided he wanted to overturn Roe, worked backwards and then realized this decision might affect him.

wbsss4412 4y ago
Loving v Virginia didn’t cite a right to privacy in its decision. It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.
- beej71 4y ago
  > It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. How can one then go after same-sex marriage?
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    Good question. Keep in mind that this is only Thomas who is publicly stating this position. The basis for Obergefell is much broader than what was just overturned with roe, and so I would consider it on firmer legal footing than roe was, alito alluded to as much in his opinion. At the same time all it takes is 5 votes to win a case, so who knows.
- Miner49er 4y ago
  I didn't think Obergefell mentioned the right to privacy either?
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    It was based on a right to marry and equal protection, but did make a reference to a right to privacy as well: > "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court affirmed that the fundamental rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges?wprov=sft...