3 ms·
> The sexuality and race is kind of irrelevant to the point FWIW, adding sexuality and race was intentional. Why? Because of the briefs by the justices associa
by falcolas 4y ago
> The sexuality and race is kind of irrelevant to the point
FWIW, adding sexuality and race was intentional. Why? Because of the briefs by the justices associate with the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade. Specifically because the same privacy protections which protected RvW also protected gay and interracial marriages.
And that privacy protection was explicitly and intentionally nullified, as called out by Justice Clarence Thomas.
So, in the immediate term, one's sexuality and race is explicitly at risk.
- the_mungler 4y agoWhat Clarence Thomas is saying is that these decisions shouldn't have been made by the supreme court, not that these things shouldn't be allowed. In his view these decisions require the legislative branch to rule on, not nine lifetime appointed judges. I'm not sure I entirely agree that the constitution has zero room for implied rights, but that's where I think he's coming from. Edit: the Crux of the issue is that the supreme court can just as easily make bad rulings as they can good ones. To pick an admittedly dated but relevant example, the supreme court once ruled that black people are property and must be returned to their "owner", regardless of the laws of the state they were currently in. Or we could just say "supreme court justice hates minorities and gay people and wants to make his own (interracial) marriage illegal." Who needs nuance?