Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[drscorpio]

47 minutes ago, MikeDelRay said:

Clarence Thomas said "they should be revisited".

What are the actual chances of the cases being revisited, Dr. Scorpio? Someone has to bring an actual case for that to happen. (Remember it was arrogrant "libruls" who couldnt accept one state putting a reasonable restriction on abortion, which led to this decision.)

Thomas was one of the two justices that accepted Trump had a case in the post-2020 election suit, which to you makes him an "extreme fringe member", right?

But now suddenly you're pretending he somehow he is in charge of America, and has entire control over everyone's lives, viewing Americans via CCTV and with access to an electric shock button for when we're "naughty". "Liberals" go from smirking about having Trump removed from office, to pretending they are the victims of an never-ending attempted lynching - you make those changes so rapidly and quickly, it has to be called <name of a real mental disorder which has nothing to do with the behavior described deleted>.

Dude, you are really projecting.

I didn't say/imply any of those things. I just pointed out the Thomas invited challenges to those cases. But since you mentioned it in this, he is going further than Alito did in his majority opinion (he assured us these cases would not be considered since the "taking of a human life" makes abortion special) and than Kavanaugh did in his concurring opinion. I would say that he is displaying an extreme position in the sense he is more willing to reconsider these cases than the other Justices. 

Everything to do with Trump and the Big Lie and the January 6th Attempted Coup are beside the point of the discussion I started about Dobbs and the potential implications of other cases decided on the basis of a right to privacy, and I don't intend to be drawn into that mess. 

Pretty much everything in your last paragraph was utterly outside anything I ever said, and I think it speaks more to your mental state than mine. 
 

[BootmanLA]

20 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

By which statement, he invited a State - any State - to bring the challenge to other privacy rights to the SCOTUS for reconsideration.  Mr. Thomas has made clear what his pre-determined judgement will be, and is hardly open minded on the issue of Constitutional rights hinged on privacy rights as set forth in the Constitution.  Of course, he seems to have forgotten that certain right to privacy dealing with interracial marriage, since it would deprive him of "his best friend".  All the others though, are on his chopping block - he has said so, and in explicit terms. 

 

Technically, that's not quite right. Loving v Virginia, which is the case that struck down interracial marriage bans, was decided on the basis of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that distinctions drawn on the basis of race must be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny" - that is, strict scrutiny, or as the Court has formulated it, a distinction drawn to effect a compelling state interest, where no less restrictive means could effect that compelling state interest. The "right to privacy" didn't factor into the Loving decision.

The Court also held that the right to marry was a fundamental right (one of those unenumerated rights mentioned by the Ninth Amendment) that implicated due process concerns. Lawyers refer to this as "substantive due process," and that's important for this analysis.

There are two kinds of due process: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process refers to processes established by the government with respect to criminal law: under procedural due process, you have a right to an attorney, you have a right to a trial by jury, you have the right not to testify against yourself, and so forth. Procedural due process protects you from unfair procedures like a biased judge. Generally, procedural due process protects an explicit, enumerated right, even if the required due process is not itself mentioned in the Constitution. For instance, you have a right to an attorney when you are being questioned in a criminal matter. Procedural due process, per the Miranda v. Arizona decision, requires that arrestees be informed of that right. In other words, the Constitution guarantees you the right; procedural due process is how that right is enforced.

Substantive due process is less clearly defined - it's (broadly speaking) a right to be free from governmental policies that go beyond the power of government to create - for instance, a law that compelled everyone to wear a red hat on Mondays would be a violation of substantive due process, because the government doesn't have the power to compel that behavior.

Why is that distinction important? Because some radical conservatives, including Justice Thomas, do not believe in substantive due process AT ALL. His belief, as he has clearly articulated in the past, is that the "unenumerated" rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not federal rights that can be vindicated by federal courts, but instead rights that people can vindicate via state legislative processes - ie, if the people of Virginia want to protect same-sex marriage, they're free to do so by passing a state law that does just that, or to write that into their constitution, or to choose (by whatever means) a state Supreme Court that will recognize that right under state law. But in his view, federal courts have no power to provide substantive due process.

He said as much again in his concurrence in Dobbs.

In other words: Thomas' marriage would be safe, in any event, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But rights that are (under Court decisions) protected by substantive due process would be, under Thomas's view, swept aside. Add to that Thomas's view that erroneous (in his view) precedent should ALWAYS be struck down, and even a sceptic should be able to see the danger.

Because Thomas isn't alone in this viewpoint, and it's one shared by most "originalists". Alito would sign onto this in a heartbeat. I'd think Barrett would sign onto this sort of opinion, as would Kavanaugh. I'm not so sure about Gorsuch and kind of skeptical about Roberts, but I wouldn't count them out. 

 

[hntnhole]

Well, I must say - that was as professional, clear, and incisive an explanation I've read here.  Kudos, and thanks so much for that very comprehensive, intelligent reply.  If I wore a hat, it would be off to you right now.  

[Guest]

yes indeed.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Guest

[Guest]

On 6/30/2022 at 9:30 PM, Close2MyBro said:

I don't understand why you want so hard to press to hear from a Republican perspective. It's as if you're implying that you can't be gay and a Republican, or that you can't be a Republican and believe in the right to abortion, or hold some other belief that may not be widely accepted in the gay community. We have many of the political disagreements today because everyone is so focused on sorting people based on their belief system, labeling them, and then scorning them if their belief system doesn't match their own. Where's the "inclusion" if everyone is so busy finding ways to "exclude" everyone?? It's like sorting people into "binary" and "non-binary". The very act of doing so creates yet another binary system. So may people fail to think for themselves and develop their own value system that they blindly follow others who tell them what their value system should be and adopt beliefs that they've never questions or examined, or even bothered to think thru the logic of them (or lack of logic in many cases) nor have they stopped stopped to think about the long-term effect of those positions on society as a whole.

That is very true.  There are many atheists/agnostics, Jews, and Muslims who are against abortion, as there is such a thing as condoms, safe sex, using condoms with other birth control, etc.

[Guest]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:56 PM, MikeDelRay said:

Clarence Thomas said "they should be revisited".

What are the actual chances of the cases being revisited, Dr. Scorpio? Someone has to bring an actual case for that to happen. (Remember it was arrogrant "libruls" who couldnt accept one state putting a reasonable restriction on abortion, which led to this decision.)

Thomas was one of the two justices that accepted Trump had a case in the post-2020 election suit, which to you makes him an "extreme fringe member", right?

But now suddenly you're pretending he somehow he is in charge of America, and has entire control over everyone's lives, viewing Americans via CCTV and with access to an electric shock button for when we're "naughty". "Liberals" go from smirking about having Trump removed from office, to pretending they are the victims of an never-ending attempted lynching - you make those changes so rapidly and quickly, it has to be called <name of a real mental disorder which has nothing to do with the behavior described deleted>.

Haha true, it is a bunch of fear mongering by ackkktivists, and the USA media.  Not too long ago, for many decades these same so called liberals or progressives were super homophobic/biphobic/against LGB/LGBT rights COMPLETELY, and now they are pro-censorship, and blackkk supremacists.

I was a moderate and leaned left, but the USA left lost me when they focused on always being victims, the histrionics, being pro-censorship, etc.  I am old enough to remember when the left did not care about the establishment, now they are super pro-establishment, conformist, and both major parties in the USA have been the same for over 50 years and sold out/fucked over the American public long ago.

Edited July 3, 2022 by TotalTop

[Guest]

On 6/30/2022 at 6:23 PM, NEDenver said:

Crowder?  Really?  That 3 lonely brain cells in a smooth gelatin sack twit is carrying your argument?  Dude.  You’ve *got* to be able to do better.

I don't completely agree with everything he says, but historically he is correct. The Democratic party has always been the party of racism and slavery.

[Guest]

The racist eugenicist founder of planned parenthood Margaret Sanger be ROLLING in her grave knowing that a Black man overruled Roe v Wade.

 

[ErosWired]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:32 PM, BootmanLA said:

This is the long game the GOP is playing

Yes. But long is a matter of perspective, and Time doesn’t play anybody’s game. Who are the players pushing the GOP’s long game? They’re people - largely older white men - desperate to preserve a status quo in which they sit as King of the Hill and tell everyone else what to do and how to live whilst they get rich and fat off the systems they’ve set in place to exploit everyone below them. They’ve managed to get away with it all this time because their culture has been dominant for the last few centuries. It’s been a sweet ride.

But they’re getting old, and their numbers are dwindling. An implacable tide is rising against them, and they may strive against it for a time, but in the end, they will diminish, and the new people will come into their own, and those people will decide for themselves how they choose to live. The more onerous the laws have become, the more likely the people will sweep them away.

Humans reject what they dislike; that is their nature. Currently, polls suggest that most people dislike the way people in power are throwing their weight around. They will not suffer it indefinitely. The more pain they feel, the quicker they will act. The long game being played is one in which the pain inflicted on a growing majority can only increase incrementally, until it at last becomes too great to tolerate - and then it will be ended. This long game can only, in the long run, fail.

Its failure may result in the loss of the American republic as we have known it; that remains to be seen. If so, it will be because the institutions contained within themselves a fatal flaw, in that they did not anticipate the worst aspects of human nature taking form and substance, that they made no provision for the soulless or for monsters. Perhaps what emerges from the ruins will be stronger.
 

“The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.” - Treebeard, The Return of the King.*
 

*In the movies, this line is spoken by Galadriel, but it is spoken by Treebeard to Galadriel in the book.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, TotalTop said:

 There are many atheists/agnostics, Jews, and Muslims who are against abortion, as there is such a thing as condoms, safe sex, using condoms with other birth control, etc.

With that same reasoning people might be against offering treatment against HIV and AIDS, as there are other sexual acts to enjoy besides fucking and sucking, there is also safe sex and of course condoms. 

There are also many, many people who would allow abortions at he very least when it endangers the health and life of the mother, and after a woman has been raped. 

 

10 hours ago, TotalTop said:

The racist eugenicist founder of planned parenthood Margaret Sanger be ROLLING in her grave knowing that a Black man overruled Roe v Wade.

I would like everyone - not just you - to leave the colour of Justice Thomas' skin (and that of his wife) out of this discussion.

A black man didn't overturn Roe v Wade, a republican-appointed majority of the Supreme Court did; of which Justice Thomas is but one member.

 

He IS however, the one who in his concurrent opinion calls to 'revisit' gay rights as they are now based on comparable earlier SCOTUS-rulings and interpretations of amendments to the US Constitution.

That's why the following contribution you give just isn't true:

11 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Haha true, it is a bunch of fear mongering by ackkktivists, and the USA media.  Not too long ago, for many decades these same so called liberals or progressives were super homophobic/biphobic/against LGB/LGBT rights COMPLETELY, and now they are pro-censorship, and blackkk supremacists.

I was a moderate and leaned left, but the USA left lost me when they focused on always being victims, the histrionics, being pro-censorship, etc.  I am old enough to remember when the left did not care about the establishment, now they are super pro-establishment, conformist, and both major parties in the USA have been the same for over 50 years and sold out/fucked over the American public long ago.

I will again quote from Justice Thomas' opinion:

"The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con- traceptives)*; 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. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9)."

(Emphasis added).

Source: [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

 

I'm not saying Justice Thomas is 'fear mongering' (your words) but he is the one who has opened this can of worms.

 

You do realise, by claiming that "both major parties in the USA have been the same for over 50 years and sold out/fucked over the American public long ago." you - as a member of that same American public - you are yourself saying you're a victim?

Edited July 4, 2022 by Guest

[BigBearSean]

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

I would like everyone - not just you - to leave the colour of Justice Thomas' skin (and that of his wife) out of this discussion.

A black man didn't overturn Roe v Wade, a republican-appointed majority of the Supreme Court did; of which Justice Thomas is but one member.

But his skin color, and in particular his WIFE'S skin color, does matter.  Because the EXACT SAME reasoning he gave to dismiss abortion rights is the EXACT SAME reason mixed marriage rights exist.  In fact, Loving v Virginia even references Roe v Wade at least a half dozen times.  As does Obergefell and several more cases.  He's a KNOWING HYPOCRITE because he wants his cake of right to privacy and bodily autonomy while denying it to everyone else he hates too.  Fuck that asshole.

[BergenGuy]

On 6/26/2022 at 5:41 PM, TotalTop said:

That is never going to happen.

You've said that several times, but you've never explained why it'll never happen?  All that it takes is for one red state to start enforcing its laws against same-sex marriage, and then watch the inevitable suit make its way through the court system.  There are certainly enough votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.

[BergenGuy]

1 hour ago, BigBearSean said:

In fact, Loving v Virginia even references Roe v Wade at least a half dozen times.

That would be a be difficult as Loving was decided six years earlier than Roe.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BigBearSean said:

But his skin color, and in particular his WIFE'S skin color, does matter.  Because the EXACT SAME reasoning he gave to dismiss abortion rights is the EXACT SAME reason mixed marriage rights exist.  In fact, Loving v Virginia even references Roe v Wade at least a half dozen times.  As does Obergefell and several more cases.  He's a KNOWING HYPOCRITE because he wants his cake of right to privacy and bodily autonomy while denying it to everyone else he hates too.  Fuck that asshole.

If you set a HIGHER standard for Justice Thomas because of his skin-colour/race, that is actual racism. 

The same goes for people using a reasoning like 'Israelis should know better' because of the Holocaust, when it concerns the treatment of Palestines.
That's antisemitic. 

I would be a racist, if I'd expect you to leave race out of it, because you're homosexual or bisexual and 'should know what discrimination feels like'.  I'm not asking it for that reason.
I'm asking to leave Thomas' and his wife's race out of it, because the fight for gay rights, like reproductive rights is SERIOUS and we need SERIOUS arguments and tactics so the best ideas win.

You can call Justice Thomas for what he is because of his actions:
An asshole indeed although that - to me - would be an insult to actual assholes everywhere and I'd like to apologise especially to the one's I've happily fucked for the comparison. 😉 

But seriously and although I'd hate to say it, his reasoning is at least coherent (Loving is not entirely a good comparison to Roe) and it does place on the Americans (the US part anyway..) the burden to get going and convince 51 % of the electorate and possibly 67 % of the electorate in every US-state to lay down some basic human rights  in amendments to your constitution. 

That's the way forward imo.
And I hope that unlike this old and dimwitted continent I'm from you won't need to experience a holocaust and it's monstrosities before you carve these principles in stone. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Guest

[BigBearSean]

8 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

If you set a HIGHER standard for Justice Thomas because of his skin-colour/race, that is actual racism. 

 

You completely ignored every single thing that I stated about legal precedent and why race DOES directly matter to his "reasoning" in determining how to overthrow abortion rights.  THE. EXACT. SAME. LEGAL. STANDING. Is used to support both Roe v Wade and Loving v Virginia.  You CAN'T claim women don't have a right to privacy in regards to their own bodies and abortion while ALSO claiming you have a right to privacy in regards to your own and your marriage.  It's a "for me, but not for thee" hypocrisy where Thomas protects HIS rights while directly targeting THE. EXACT. SAME. PRECEDENT. For being his "reasoning" to destroy protections based upon them.

Ignoring Thomas' race would be a DISHONEST conversation because it would claim law exists in a bubble independent of each ruling instead of heavily upon precedent guided by the rulings and mentalities of those before.  It would DISHONESTLY ignore how Thomas intentionally targeting women for enslavement while leaving himself conveniently consequence free of his own actions.

Calling out a black man married to a white woman for destroying a protection HIS OWN MARRIAGE is secured by isn't racism.  It's speaking truth to power and holding them accountable for their actions and hate.  It has to be done in order to recreate a just society.