Justice Thomas makes it clear decisions support our rights are next

[hntnhole]

6 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Many women are against abortion and you like to "blame" men for unsafe sex, but many women want it and have it just as much if not more than men do.

This is becoming ridiculous ... replies that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual thoughts others have shared? 

Cogency is simply not afoot here.

 

[BergenGuy]

5 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

But now you've found the time, I am still open to here your thoughts on politics with regard to gay rights. Some people don't think any Republican voters would even try and make an effort and I'm hoping you'll prove them wrong:

Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, has said that he would defend a state law that banned sodomy.  And, of course, the Texas Republicans recently adopted a platform that calls homosexuality "an abnormal lifestyle choice."  The 2020 National Republican platform opposed marriage equality.  Republicans will most certainly make an effort to overturn Supreme Court decisions that protect gays.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, NEDenver said:

No, and the Hippocratic oath doesn’t have any legal standing in the US.  

So “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.”?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, BergenGuy said:

Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, has said that he would defend a state law that banned sodomy.  And, of course, the Texas Republicans recently adopted a platform that calls homosexuality "an abnormal lifestyle choice."  The 2020 National Republican platform opposed marriage equality.  Republicans will most certainly make an effort to overturn Supreme Court decisions that protect gays.

I would like to hear from a gay or bisexual republican perspective, how they see this.

People agreeing with each other might not be the way out of this. (And I probably agree with you babe).

[Guest]

On 6/26/2022 at 11:41 PM, TotalTop said:

That is never going to happen.

Justice Thomas apparently disagrees with you:

"The Court today declines to disturb substantive due pro- cess 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 Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar- riage), 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 Amend- ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDon- ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor- tion.” Ante, at 66.

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive 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., con- curring) (slip op., at 9)."

(Emphasis added).

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

Edited July 1, 2022 by Guest

[Close2MyBro]

20 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

I would like to hear from a gay or bisexual republican perspective, how they see this.

People agreeing with each other might not be the way out of this. (And I probably agree with you babe).

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.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, 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.

Because I seriously want to hear it from that perspective and add it to the conversation, because there are gay and bisexual republicans so I might imply what I want - which was not my intent - they are here too. There are also christian gay and bisexual people.

I may not share their ideas but that doesn't have to mean we can't talk about our different points of view.

I'd like those to take the time to think and talk too.  that's all. 

[hntnhole]

10 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

I don't understand why you want so hard to press to hear from a Republican perspective.

I haven't taken his (multiple) requests to hear from a Republican about these issues as anything more than wanting to have responsible, intellectual curiosity addressed.  That's (hopefully) what all of us want. 

 

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I may not share their ideas but that doesn't have to mean we can't talk about our different points of view.

I'd like those to take the time to think and talk too.  that's all. 

I think he's sincere in asking for varying points of view.  He doesn't live in the US, but he's well-read on what goes on here.  I respect him for wanting even-handed input to his perspectives.  Where's the harm in that?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I haven't taken his (multiple) requests to hear from a Republican about these issues as anything more than wanting to have responsible, intellectual curiosity addressed.  That's (hopefully) what all of us want. 

 

I think he's sincere in asking for varying points of view.  He doesn't live in the US, but he's well-read on what goes on here.  I respect him for wanting even-handed input to his perspectives.  Where's the harm in that?

Thanks.

Another reason is that once in a while a small public/political debate in The Netherlands is about the question if our Hoge Raad der Nederland (one of our Supreme Courts, lit.: High Council of The Netherlands) should be able to check if laws are consistent with our constitution, which they are now explicitly barred from doing by that same constitution.
(They are obliged to make sure the laws are in line with international treaties such as the ' Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms' wicht contains broadly the same human rights as Chapter I or our constitution, so in practice they can defend these the rights, freedoms and prerogatives of anyone in our country). But in effect that still means that the Hoge Raad is still reluctant to make law themselves.
Court-cases to have same-sex marriages allowed failed in The Netherlands and the Hoge Raad basically told de Staten Generaal (our Congress) and the government it was their job to decide. (Which they did, as the or one of the first countries in the world. Rather proud of that, although it's been going downhill after that).

So besides me feeling some kind of kinship to gays and bisuexals in the US (and ok, I like them lesbians too although for the life of me I can't imagine anyone NOT liking cock... 😉)
I'm seriously interested how it plays out when decisions about how to impliment human rights are not only taken by an elected parliament but also in a larger degree by the judicial system. (And neither system is perfect probably).

Also the cultural power and influence of the US is enormous because through the export or US culture and ways of doing business you have a profound influence on how people think in the rest of the world, and surely here in Western Europe.

And last but not least I felt - and I hope I was mistaken - that people who support this SCOTUS ruling were not really hearing what the OP and others where saying and perhaps that was because they themselves were feeling they where not heard, demonised or not understood correctly.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Guest

[hntnhole]

Couldn't find the "thumbs up" doo-dad, so ....... Thumbs up !!!

[Guest]

💋

[MikeDelRay]

On 6/24/2022 at 1:05 PM, drscorpio said:

Thomas explicitly stated that SCOTUS should revisit Griswold (the right to have access to birth control), Lawrence (the right to have sex with the person you choose - it overturned all laws against same-sex activity),

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>.

[hntnhole]

4 minutes ago, MikeDelRay said:

Clarence Thomas said "they should be revisited".

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. 

 

[Guest]

25 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 schizophrenia.

I'll guess we'll know if any of the fourteen States that make up the United States, and who haven't formally revoked their anti-sodomy laws, or a future President of the US as Commander in Chief of the armed forces for that matter, chooses to challenge the ruling that homosexuality for instance, can not be forbidden by law.
Some of these laws that are still on the books don't distinguish between homosexuality and beastiality, which is technically accurate when using the term 'sodomy'.
But that is saying something about how we as gay and bi-sexual humans are perceived by a part of the public, don't you think?

(Source: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Legality_of_same-sex_sexual_activity).

 

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:

25 minutes ago, MikeDelRay said:

you make those changes so rapidly and quickly, it has to be called schizophrenia.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Guest

[BootmanLA]

12 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 schizophrenia.

As I noted: the point is that when a fringe member of the Court (and yes, Thomas is on the far-right fringe of the Court) writes a concurrence to a decision, and said concurrence goes way beyond the actual decision in the particular case, and the party that appointed him lauds him for his cogent views, then yes, it's a concern. It's a sign that this is the direction the party wants to move the Court, and they'll do what they have to (including refusing to consider a liberal president's nominee for the Court as well as ramming through a nominee from a conservative president who's about to lose an election) in order to carry that out.

Consider this: Roe had already been supplanted, in large measure, by Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992, when the "trimester" system was abandoned. Casey held that states couldn't prohibit abortion pre-viability, but regulations relative to health and safety were subject to a balancing test considering whether the regulation imposed an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. The five justices who voted for Casey were ALL Republicans - because the entire Court, except for Byron White, were appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush I. The GOP, having realized what a great wedge issue abortion was for ginning up outrage among their base, knew they'd have to appoint different kinds of Republican justices in order to get the result they wanted. And they did.

If you don't think people will bring those cases - look at abortion. Casey was settled law, and yet state after state after state passed a law to chip away at abortion rights until they had the majority they needed to just do away with it. Do you seriously think that these people won't also go after low-hanging fruit to chip away at the right to same-sex marriage, until it's eviscerated too?

Picture this: a company wants to offer spousal benefits but only to heterosexual spouses, and claims a religious right to refuse to endorse same-sex marriage as the basis. This Court has already indicated that the religious rights of employers and businesses are sacrosanct. I can easily see this Court saying that while states can't ban gay marriage outright (yet) they can't force businesses to treat spouses alike.

And then the next Kim Davis type will come along, saying that while maybe the state can't ban gay marriage, court officials can refuse to marry people, and the Court will take up that case. And then, giving a green light to local court officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, they'll become unavailable in vast swaths of Red America.

And so on, and so on. And eventually, there will be five votes on the Court to say "Well, at the founding, there certainly was no consensus that same-sex relations were protected in any way" and BAM - Obergefell is overturned, and all the states whose restrictions on same-sex marriage were ended by federal courts (which is about 2/3 of them) will suddenly be free to ban gay marriage - or, since they never repealed their bans, it'll be banned immediately. That's EXACTLY why red states that banned gay marriage by constitutional amendment in the early 2000's have never repealed those bans - they hope (with good reason) that the Court will reverse itself.

This is the long game the GOP is playing, and if anyone is convinced it can't succeed, just look at what they did to Roe/Casey just last week in Dobbs. This is not fear-mongering. It's an accurate depiction of where the GOP wants to take America, and if they have to do it by stealing Supreme Court seats, gerrymandering the fuck out of states in order to keep the legislature and their congressional delegations Republican, and imposing so many restrictions on voting that Democrats can't win in large districts or statewide, then that's what they'll do. They are ALREADY doing it. They have been doing it for the last fifteen years. They ADMIT it. Why people won't take them at their word is beyond me.