4 ms·

Sorry, I simplified this because I thought people would appreciate having the reference to the actual principles behind the cases rather than literally just nam

Sorry, I simplified this because I thought people would appreciate having the reference to the actual principles behind the cases rather than literally just naming random names that happen to be the plaintiffs in the precedent setting case. To be specific, we're talking about substantive due process as referenced on page 43 of the decision. As an aside - it's making the quite whimsical statement that abortion isn't deeply rooted in the nations history - literally comical. But moving on, Thomas goes on to clarify on page 118 that he believes that that entire phrase is an oxymoron, implying that no ruling based on it should be upheld. As you point out he literally name drops contraceptives when abandoning entire swathes of court precedent. > Should I bother to see what he actually wrote about same sex marriage and gay sex? No you absolutely shouldn't bother it's definitely not there. I'll hold my hands up, I just got to the word contraceptives and just made the rest up. Let's read what it really says: > Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. Which brings me back to my original point - which was to quote the actual details of the cases, not the names of the plaintiffs. >They don't bring the cases. They choose the cases from those they are brought but they have also regularly chosen cases that invoke Roe or Casey, before and after the conservative majority. Just to be clear, the replacement for RBJ was in place about 18 months ago and since then a number of clearly Roe-breaching laws were passed and then progressively handed up through the courts to get this decision. It has been as direct and immediate as it could possibly have been.

brigandish 4y ago
That would've read better if you'd tried to respond to what I actually wrote instead of letting your tribal instincts get the better of you. > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. I didn't say I couldn't find it, you've pointed to a different sentence (I referenced page 122, the quote you've given is from page 118, that would be a loooong sentence), so why are you writing that? Yes, you seem to be making things up or reading things second hand that distort the actual text that I've given you a link to. So, take a breath, read what I wrote again and respond to that, and try it with the attitude of charity[1] and (the buzzword of the moment) good faith, because I'm not really that interested in whether American women can get abortions or not as I'm not American nor a woman. Mindless tribalism isn't going to lead to a good conversation. I am interested in the law (mainly English common law and its derivatices), and people making claims that will stand up to scrutiny. Yours, thus far, do not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  I've literally quoted back to you a sentence from the document you cited with a list of all the things I claim including a direct reference to contraceptives that you could've literally ctrl+f'd for. If I were being less charitable I would've pointed out that the legal underpinnings of those claims also mean that Justice Clarence Thomas opposes inter-racial marriage, something not within the text but clearly consistent with his concurrence. I'll take you back to my original point in this thread - the arguments made by people like the Supreme Court Justices are contradictory and entirely driven by a decision to create pretexts for decisions they were going to make anyway. We know this. A manifestation of this, is people like you, coming out and saying that I've not read the judgement, and when I can directly point you to the section that contains what I claimed, you respond that I'm not being charitable to you. I'm not here to be charitable to you - I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments that make no sense to engage with, because they have nothing to do with the conclusions you drew in the first place.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments disingenuous arguments, eh? > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. As I've pointed out already, it's a different sentence. Which means one of: - you didn't read what I wrote properly (twice now) - you're lying - you don't understand your own mistake > I'm not here to be charitable to you You should be charitable to yourself and everyone here by leaving such arguments on Twitter where that kind of low quality nonsense is the norm, at least in part because people don't read what the other person has written properly.

brigandish 4y ago

That would've read better if you'd tried to respond to what I actually wrote instead of letting your tribal instincts get the better of you. > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. I didn't say I couldn't find it, you've pointed to a different sentence (I referenced page 122, the quote you've given is from page 118, that would be a loooong sentence), so why are you writing that? Yes, you seem to be making things up or reading things second hand that distort the actual text that I've given you a link to. So, take a breath, read what I wrote again and respond to that, and try it with the attitude of charity[1] and (the buzzword of the moment) good faith, because I'm not really that interested in whether American women can get abortions or not as I'm not American nor a woman. Mindless tribalism isn't going to lead to a good conversation. I am interested in the law (mainly English common law and its derivatices), and people making claims that will stand up to scrutiny. Yours, thus far, do not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

SilverBirch 4y ago
I've literally quoted back to you a sentence from the document you cited with a list of all the things I claim including a direct reference to contraceptives that you could've literally ctrl+f'd for. If I were being less charitable I would've pointed out that the legal underpinnings of those claims also mean that Justice Clarence Thomas opposes inter-racial marriage, something not within the text but clearly consistent with his concurrence. I'll take you back to my original point in this thread - the arguments made by people like the Supreme Court Justices are contradictory and entirely driven by a decision to create pretexts for decisions they were going to make anyway. We know this. A manifestation of this, is people like you, coming out and saying that I've not read the judgement, and when I can directly point you to the section that contains what I claimed, you respond that I'm not being charitable to you. I'm not here to be charitable to you - I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments that make no sense to engage with, because they have nothing to do with the conclusions you drew in the first place.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > I'm here making a claim that you make disingenuous arguments disingenuous arguments, eh? > Oh that's right that thing you say you couldn't find and I must have made up, is in fact in the same sentence that you pointed me to. As I've pointed out already, it's a different sentence. Which means one of: - you didn't read what I wrote properly (twice now) - you're lying - you don't understand your own mistake > I'm not here to be charitable to you You should be charitable to yourself and everyone here by leaving such arguments on Twitter where that kind of low quality nonsense is the norm, at least in part because people don't read what the other person has written properly.