Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, BigBearSean said:

You completely ignored every single thing that I stated about legal precedent 

Yes, because it was without any serious (legal) foundation as other's more intelligent than I have explained earlier.

We are not going to succes in convincing the supporters of Thomas and others. to guarantee women's and gay's rights by this kind of attack.

 

7 minutes ago, BigBearSean said:

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.

The (Peaceful) protests of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Desmond Tutu in South Africa alike have done more for the laying of a foundation of a more just society than words of hate and exclusion. 
And when in history, where on this planet of ours have we ever had in the past a true just society by our modern standards?

I'm dreaming of a future, not of a past that has never been.

[BigBearSean]

48 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Yes, because it was without any serious (legal) foundation as other's more intelligent than I have explained earlier.

That's willful ignorance right there.  Especially given that Loving v Virginia REFERENCES Roe v Wade as the foundation for its argument at least a half dozen times.  Again, you simply don't want to believe facts that exist counter to your beliefs.

[think before following links] https://www.insider.com/roe-wade-loving-virginia-interracial-marriage-scotus-overturns-2022-6?amp

[think before following links] https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/jim-obergefell-blasts-justice-clarence-thomas-over-roe-ruling/amp/

[think before following links] https://amp.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article261339032.html

[think before following links] https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/11/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-gay-rights-contraceptives-fertility-treatments

[think before following links] https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23055107/supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade-constitution

As far as the logical falacy of your final statement, "have we ever had in the past a true just society by our modern standards?", there's an explicit reason the Founding Fathers stated that they intended to create a "more perfect union."  Justice is a journey as much a destination.  I don't get why you threw Gandhi and Tutu in this discussion, but if you're trying to interject some bad argument about peaceful protests, let me remind you that today in the 4th of July.  And that American UNpeacefully protested for their governmental autonomy when peaceful protests failed for generations.

Sometimes to ensure your rights and freedoms, to build a more perfect and more just society, you have to tell hypocritical hate-mongerers like Thomas to go to fucking hell.  And back it up with action.  Because he EXPLICITLY stated he has no intention of ever stopping.  And did so 30 years ago.  See where we are today and his THREATS against LGBT people and even married straight women using contraception.

I WILL call out his race because it makes him 3x the hypocrite.  Lie to yourself and call that "racism" if you want.  But it's a FACT that he's attacking human rights specifically so that he'll never feel the affects.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BigBearSean said:

Especially given that Loving v Virginia REFERENCES Roe v Wade as the foundation for its argument at least a half dozen times. 

Loving vs. Virgina was 1967.
Roe vs. Wade was 1973.

 So I'm as deeply impressed with your knowledge as with the fact that the Supreme Court already had a time-machine to be able to reference a ruling they where yet to make themselves, soldier.

 

[Guest]

Something like this is the constructive (and with respect to facts, history and all that crap) approach that might be the way to go:

[think before following links] https://www.towleroad.com/2022/07/new-york-moves-to-enshrine-abortion-rights-in-state-constitution/

[hntnhole]

Welcome, BigBearSean

Thanks for your insightful commentary.  Most appreciated and well thought out.  As to the "fuck that asshole" comment, that's waaaay too generous of you ..... 

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

That's willful ignorance right there.  Especially given that Loving v Virginia REFERENCES Roe v Wade as the foundation for its argument at least a half dozen times.  Again, you simply don't want to believe facts that exist counter to your beliefs.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you didn't understand the point made: Loving v. Virginia could NOT possibly have referenced Roe v. Wade, because Loving was decided in 1967, and Roe was decided in 1973, six years later. Linear time, what a concept. I would quote your comment about "facts that exist counter to your beliefs" but I think that would be unsportsmanlike.

Moreover, Loving was (as I noted above, in a post you must not have read) based its decision primarily on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and only partly on the Due Process portion of that amendment. Roe was not - absolutely NOT - predicated on the Equal Protection Clause at all.

Here's the "money quote" from the Roe decision: "A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

THAT is the holding of Roe - and that is the holding that was specifically overturned in June in the Dobbs case.

[BigBearSean]

On 7/4/2022 at 12:37 PM, BareLover666 said:

Loving vs. Virgina was 1967.
Roe vs. Wade was 1973.

 So I'm as deeply impressed with your knowledge as with the fact that the Supreme Court already had a time-machine to be able to reference a ruling they where yet to make themselves, soldier.

 

Oh no!  I transposed dates but my exact same point still remains that THE LATER REFERENCES THE FORMER AS PART OF ITS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.  Good thing you keep ignoring that point or you might have to account for judical precedent or something...

[BigBearSean]

21 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you didn't understand the point made: Loving v. Virginia could NOT possibly have referenced Roe v. Wade, because Loving was decided in 1967, and Roe was decided in 1973, six years later. Linear time, what a concept. I would quote your comment about "facts that exist counter to your beliefs" but I think that would be unsportsmanlike.

Moreover, Loving was (as I noted above, in a post you must not have read) based its decision primarily on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and only partly on the Due Process portion of that amendment. Roe was not - absolutely NOT - predicated on the Equal Protection Clause at all.

Here's the "money quote" from the Roe decision: "A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

THAT is the holding of Roe - and that is the holding that was specifically overturned in June in the Dobbs case.

Which circles back to the facts that A.) the justices are ignoring the 14th Amendment and its due process clause by revoking a woman's right to privacy that was built upon it, and B.) Thomas' own marriage is partially upheld by that exact same legal justification and precedent, making him a damn hypocrite to ignore "reviewing" his marriage but being totally fine destroying others.

[BootmanLA]

40 minutes ago, BigBearSean said:

Oh no!  I transposed dates but my exact same point still remains that THE LATER REFERENCES THE FORMER AS PART OF ITS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.  Good thing you keep ignoring that point or you might have to account for judical precedent or something...

But that's the point.  Saying "the former references the latter" is diametrically opposed to "the latter references the former". That's how time works.

And as I pointed out. the primary basis for the Court's decision in Loving was Equal Protection. Substantive due process was an afterthought insofar as that decision was concerned, and the entire decision would stand even if the justices had never referenced substantive due process at all in Loving.

By contrast, Roe was based entirely on substantive due process - because it held there was a right to privacy (this opinion first gave that name to this right) and that right emanated from substantive due process - that there are certain areas of life that government simply can't regulate. In Roe, they cited multiple cases in this area, and Loving was only mentioned briefly (by name only) twice and was not discussed in any detail at all. By contrast, Griswold (the contraception case) was referenced no fewer than five times, including the basis for its holding.

So regardless of what Thomas et al. think about substantive due process - and we know he and some of the others reject it from the beginning - that would NOT affect Loving, because Loving was decided on Equal Protection. It's right there in the opinion. So saying, as you claim, that Thomas is being a hypocrite by gutting Roe's reliance on substantive due process while ignoring what it means for interracial marriage is simply false, and saying that Roe cited Loving is, while technically true, rather misleading.

[BootmanLA]

46 minutes ago, BigBearSean said:

Which circles back to the facts that A.) the justices are ignoring the 14th Amendment and its due process clause by revoking a woman's right to privacy that was built upon it, and B.) Thomas' own marriage is partially upheld by that exact same legal justification and precedent, making him a damn hypocrite to ignore "reviewing" his marriage but being totally fine destroying others.

I wouldn't say that the justices are ignoring the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Rather, they are holding that "due process" in this case means "procedural due process" - which is how the phrase was interpreted for the first hundred and fifty or so years of the country - and not also "substantive due process" - which is a legal concept that did not arise until the 20th century.

This shouldn't be a surprise considering that Thomas, Alito, and some of the rest claim to be "originalists" and believe that words in the constitution have to be given the meaning that they had when they were written.

And again: no, you can't say that a decision rests "partly" on A and "partly" on B - at least, not Loving. That decision makes it perfectly clear that even if the words "due process" had never appeared in the Fourteenth Amendment, bans on interracial marriage *independently* fail (not "partly" fail) because of Equal Protection issues. Full stop. That fact is *precisely* the basis for Thomas's view that substantive (as opposed to procedural) due process is a myth created by the Court in the 20th century that needs to be eradicated - as he made clear. 

[BigBearSean]

9 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I wouldn't say that the justices are ignoring the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Rather, they are holding that "due process" in this case means "procedural due process" - which is how the phrase was interpreted for the first hundred and fifty or so years of the country - and not also "substantive due process" - which is a legal concept that did not arise until the 20th century.

This shouldn't be a surprise considering that Thomas, Alito, and some of the rest claim to be "originalists" and believe that words in the constitution have to be given the meaning that they had when they were written.

And again: no, you can't say that a decision rests "partly" on A and "partly" on B - at least, not Loving. That decision makes it perfectly clear that even if the words "due process" had never appeared in the Fourteenth Amendment, bans on interracial marriage *independently* fail (not "partly" fail) because of Equal Protection issues. Full stop. That fact is *precisely* the basis for Thomas's view that substantive (as opposed to procedural) due process is a myth created by the Court in the 20th century that needs to be eradicated - as he made clear. 

Can we all first admit that "constitutional originalism" is a load of horseshit conservative christians made up to "justify" claiming thhat the Constitution says whatever the fuck they want it to say?  After all, Scalia CHANGE THE MEANING of the 2nd Amendment, which clearly mentions "a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State," and which was ruled 9 times before 2008 as being ONLY in regards to a State's right and NEVER a personal one, as being for personal rights of everyone everywhere regardless of what a state wants or how "well regulated" they choose to make them.  So that line of bullshit is meaningless from these hate-mongerers.

Secondly, no matter what puedo-legal nonsense they slapped together in the recent ruling for effectively destroying a HUMAN RIGHT, the simple fact of the matter is that none of it holds up under review, as hundreds of lawyers and legal experts have pointed out already, and is built ENTIRELY upon their personal, religious views that abortion is "evil."  The whole "state's right" bullshit tag line is, and has always been, nothing more than a dog whistle for hate.  And they sidestepped *directly* making abortion illegal by knowingly destroying the RIGHT to it because they knew 38 states would rush to make it illegal, if it wasn't done so before.

And let's not forget how Republicans 100% will make it illegal nationwide on a federal level the instant they get in power again.  With their religio-fascist judges saying jack and squat about how magically it's not a "states' rights" issue any more.

This is stage 2 or 3 of fascism.  Where they destroy legal rights and protections and make new laws that they demand all "good, law abiding" citizens to follow.  It's a perversion of justice that leads to pink triangles, ghettos, prisons, and genocides.  It's the exact same shit my great grandparents and grandparents fleed Germany over.  It's the same abuses that were made legal until 2000! when Texas' Supreme Court overthrew the last laws criminalizing homosexuality.  And it's the same abuse Texas Republicans have once again officially built their platform upon.

Whatever bullshit excuses Thomas et all are making now to destroy women's rights aren't based upon anything but hate, power, and control.  They've been telling us that for decades now.  I just wish we didn't have such a feckless and FUCKING USELESS Democrat party as the only "ally" against enslavement or genocide.  Without a massive change in leadership, Republicans will turn us into a fascist regime in 3-7 years.  And it's fucking INFURIATING seeing it all happen, and be accurately identified!, right before my eyes.

[BootmanLA]

59 minutes ago, BigBearSean said:

It's the same abuses that were made legal until 2000! when Texas' Supreme Court overthrew the last laws criminalizing homosexuality.  And it's the same abuse Texas Republicans have once again officially built their platform upon.

I'm not sure where you keep getting these bizarro, alternate-universe ideas, but there was no such case in 2000 when Texas's Supreme Court "overthrew" (courts don't overthrow, they overturn, but I digress) the last laws criminalizing homsexuality.

For one thing, in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court does not rule on criminal cases, period. The Texas Supreme Court hears ONLY appeals in civil cases - where one person is suing another. The final place for criminal cases to be considered, under Texas law, is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. That court, in 2000, DECLINED to hear a challenge to the state's law prohibiting homosexual sex acts. That refusal to hear the case left intact a lower, appellate court decision UPHOLDING the state's criminalization of gay sex.

That case - Lawrence v. Texas - was the basis, IN 2003, for the US Supreme Court's decision (hint: when "Texas" is the defendant in a case involving gay sex laws, you can pretty much assume it still had laws on the books about that) - which decision ACTUALLY overturned all state laws, including Texas's, regarding private, consensual gay sex.

I get your passion and your zeal for improving our world - and yay for that!  - but you do no favors to yourself, the community at large, or the progressive movement when you invent court cases that don't exist and mis-cite what existing cases actually said and do. 

[MikeDelRay]

On 7/1/2022 at 6:21 PM, BareLover666 said:

 

And please try be civil if you can't play nice.
Calling someones actions or the person himself schizophrenic only diminishes oneself and might say very much about ones own (lack of) character:

yes, basic psychiatry is just "trolling". Or whatever.

[MikeDelRay]

On 7/1/2022 at 6:56 PM, drscorpio said:

Dude, you are really projecting.

Haha, that was weak even for you.

On 7/1/2022 at 6:56 PM, drscorpio said:

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. 
 

No they aren't "besides the point" at all, I was using the way he conducts himself as a judge and applying it to our discussion about future decisions the court might make. You make it clear that you think that logic and recent history are "besides the point" lol.

When someone asinine is losing the argument they always shout "dats changing the subjeeeeect!". That's a particularly childish thing I've always been hugely annoyed by, especially when my fellow Brits say it. Oh well at least I didnt actually have to *hear* a grown human being squealing that phrase like a 12-year-old.

Since you call it "The Big Lie" and Trump called it "The Big Steal", how are you any better than him? You use simple rhetoric just like the 'reality TV president' that you claim to despise, yet you aren't any better than him verbally.  And you're terrified of any real debate about it

People  are of course going to be suspicious about the 2020 outcome because of what an incredibly miserable, pathetic public speaker Joe Biden is. And just what an unappealing old sad white-haired shrivelled old peanut of a human being he is, generally. It's a sick joke.

But you can't even bear to discuss it and you ban all so-called "conspiracy theories" (i.e. awkward facts you don't want to talk about). You're scared of a real argument, you pretend that someone saying something on the internet is going to cause a "CAPITTUL RYYYYURRT".

You think capitol rioters are going to burst out of your computer screen but you deny schizophrenia. LOL

Keep on hiding behind your edit button and your ban button, kidding yourself that you're somehow "winning an argument" fair and square. Laugh out loud.

[drscorpio]

2 hours ago, MikeDelRay said:

Keep on hiding behind your edit button and your ban button, kidding yourself that you're somehow "winning an argument" fair and square. Laugh out loud.

Again you are accusing me of things I have not done or said. That's what projecting means.