Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

News and events of the day
User avatar
hottentot venus
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2022 6:52 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by hottentot venus »

the end game is to get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and don't think Uncle Clarence won't be satisfied when that happens....this is a black man that hates himself, but not as much as he despises black folx, especially black women....

so I guess now that I can get a gun, I'll have to to protect my nieces from rapists that now have free reign to assault their next vic, err, vessel.....

we told certain fauxgressives in 2016 that SCOTUS was important regarding the vote, but they said we were being too emotional....yeah, whateva bytches....they still on socmed still tryin to justify their fucc up....

as an aside, I think this was planned to drop now, especially after how bad shyt went for them in yesterday's Jan. 6th hearings.....
Blue Lives don't exist.

Stop drawing equivalence between racial identity and a job

Your career is a choice. Being black isn't.
gounion
Posts: 17250
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by gounion »

hottentot venus wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:57 pm the end game is to get rid of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and don't think Uncle Clarence won't be satisfied when that happens....this is a black man that hates himself, but not as much as he despises black folx, especially black women....

so I guess now that I can get a gun, I'll have to to protect my nieces from rapists that now have free reign to assault their next vic, err, vessel.....

we told certain fauxgressives in 2016 that SCOTUS was important regarding the vote, but they said we were being too emotional....yeah, whateva bytches....they still on socmed still tryin to justify their fucc up....

as an aside, I think this was planned to drop now, especially after how bad shyt went for them in yesterday's Jan. 6th hearings.....
The "progressive era" started with the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and they certainly want to roll back before that. Truth is, they want to roll things back to before the Civil War. They never had a problem with slavery at all.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by ZoWie »

There are progressives and there are Progressives.

Progressives with a capital P were a late 19th/early 20th century movement, mostly economic. TR gets credit for being progressive, but he was a Republican at a time when the Democrats were still wedded to the Southern Strategy. There has been a complete flip flop between the parties regarding a few geographically specific racial issues, but that came later.

By today's standards, TR is no progressive. He also was called "Teddy the Trust Buster," but he only busted one fairly inconsequential trust. It established the precedent that allowed future leaders to go after the robber barons, but TR had no such ideals.

Progressives from that era had some views that would be considered regressive now, especially regarding white supremacy.

My limited understanding is that the name "progressive" was revived in the late 1960s or thereabouts by people who wanted to distance themselves from the center of the Democratic Party, which had staked claim to "liberal." It's before my time, but I suspect there was a desire to avoid identification with the Democratic mainstream, which favored the use of military force to install friendly governments worldwide, especially in Indochina and the whole Western Hemisphere.

Its definition still seems vague today.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by carmenjonze »

ZoWie wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:28 pm There are progressives and there are Progressives.

Progressives with a capital P were a late 19th/early 20th century movement, mostly economic. TR gets credit for being progressive, but he was a Republican at a time when the Democrats were still wedded to the Southern Strategy. There has been a complete flip flop between the parties regarding a few geographically specific racial issues, but that came later.

By today's standards, TR is no progressive. He also was called "Teddy the Trust Buster," but he only busted one fairly inconsequential trust. It established the precedent that allowed future leaders to go after the robber barons, but TR had no such ideals.

Progressives from that era had some views that would be considered regressive now, especially regarding white supremacy.

My limited understanding is that the name "progressive" was revived in the late 1960s or thereabouts by people who wanted to distance themselves from the center of the Democratic Party, which had staked claim to "liberal." It's before my time, but I suspect there was a desire to avoid identification with the Democratic mainstream, which favored the use of military force to install friendly governments worldwide, especially in Indochina and the whole Western Hemisphere.

Its definition still seems vague today.
No lies detected.

“Progressive” and “Democrat” don’t have the same meaning today.

Teddy Roosevelt was a raging white supremacist, as were many progressive positions of the time, including eugenics and certain aspects of environmentalism/conservation. That too goes back to Roosevelt.

Helen Keller was a g.d. eugenics advocate.

But then, Caitlyn sez keep the trans girls off the sorts team, and Andrew Sullivan has Charles Murray chiming in on his tweets.

A ton of first- and second-wave white feminists were quite vocal about their intent to repress nonwhites and the nonwhite vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Rebecca Fenton, women of the KKK, and temperance feminists come to mind.

All of the above have one thing in common, whatever form it takes: white supremacism.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by ZoWie »

Democrat, big D, is the name of a political party. It may or not have anything to do with democracy, small d.

It's been said that the US is not a democracy, or that it is losing its democracy. I won't get into the semantic game here. IMHO the last pure democracy was... oh wait, ancient Athens was an oligarchy. Slaves didn't vote. Maybe there's never been one. The US is a republic with a relatively democratic means of electing leaders. Relatively. There was a brief period following the Voting Rights Act when we were better at it than we are right now, when the flaws are now being accepted as politically useful tools.

----

Someone else mentioned big social media. I've sworn off that, except for twitter. Even there, I'm not reading tweets for a few days.

I therefore can't know for sure, but I suspect that right now most social media are largely sound and fury signifying nothing. Internet is a mosh pit on a good day, which this surely is not.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Bludogdem »

First thing that needs to occur is to bring forth legislation to codify abortion rights. Use it to hi lite opposition to target in the upcoming midterms.

A couple of observations.

No one signed on to the Thomas opinion. So he’s not likely to get any support on his opinion from the other five.

Roberts didn’t want roe overturned but the Mississippi law held lawful.

Alito’s opinion in which three justices agree states “ "Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. But we have stated unequivocally that '[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.” Make it likely that Oberkfell type challenges won’t be advanced.
gounion
Posts: 17250
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:03 pm First thing that needs to occur is to bring forth legislation to codify abortion rights. Use it to hi lite opposition to target in the upcoming midterms.

A couple of observations.

No one signed on to the Thomas opinion. So he’s not likely to get any support on his opinion from the other five.

Roberts didn’t want roe overturned but the Mississippi law held lawful.

Alito’s opinion in which three justices agree states “ "Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. But we have stated unequivocally that '[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.” Make it likely that Oberkfell type challenges won’t be advanced.
Yeah, right. Hilarious! And you guys said that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch weren't lying when they said they'd never overturn Roe! :lol: :lol: :lol:

First, the dissenters pointed out that they knew this wasn't the end, but just the beginning. And if the other four had told Clarence Thomas that overturning the other decisions were non-starters, he wouldn't have said a word, because now the right will be putting a ton of money into teeing up cases for them to use to overturn those decisions.

And remind me again, if you would, exactly HOW Alito voted in Obergefell? Plus, would you please explain THIS dissent in another case, which the court turned down for a hearing:
"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision," Thomas and Alito wrote. But they agreed that the court properly decided not to take up Davis' case because, they said, it does not "cleanly" present the issues in the court's 5-4 decision five years ago.

Nevertheless, they said, the case "provides a stark reminder" of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix," they said. "Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
So, why should we believe Alito when he says he isn't looking to go further down this rabbit hole?

Clarence Thomas is doing this because he knows he has five votes to do it. This is part of the decades-long plan of the right. Now that they've got the power, you're damned right they'll use it!

But you'll be SHOCKED, just SHOCKED when they do it, won't you?

And you know the right is making sure they will pass a nationwide abortion ban if they get the votes. You will be voting for Republicans to ensure that happens.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Libertas »

Of course the other four are revving up to go down the rabbit hole after everybody of course.

I remember being yelled at for saying Gorsuch would do this.

It was another pretend democrat here who said he or she was a lawyer but I don’t remember the name
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Libertas »

I am not sure but I believe the only way Nazis can make it a federal crime to get an abortion is to make a federal law which of course they can’t do while a Democrat is in the White House or there is a filibuster proof in the senate.

When red states make abortion murder and they will very soon this Supreme Court will uphold of course.

As long as it is understood republicans and cons and the conservatives on this website are seeking to kill or imprison your daughter or granddaughter or wife if they seek reproductive healthcare.
I sigh in your general direction.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by carmenjonze »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:03 pm First thing that needs to occur is …
Shut up, sock.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Libertas »

carmenjonze wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:58 pm Shut up, sock.
No shit.
I sigh in your general direction.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Bludogdem »

More from Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence.

“ But the parties’ arguments have raised other related questions, and I ad- dress some of them here.
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar- riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecti- cut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over- ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related le- gal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).”

Griswold and the like are not in danger. And lower courts have been put on notice the Dobbs can’t be used for precedent outside of an abortion case. Even Justice Thomas agrees “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.”
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by carmenjonze »

Bludogdem wrote: Griswold and the like are not in danger.
The entire 14th Amendment has been under assault since Reconstruction, thanks to enablers like you.
Last edited by carmenjonze on Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
Toonces
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:52 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Toonces »

Roe was "not in danger" at one point, too.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Bludogdem »

Toonces wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:08 pm Roe was "not in danger" at one point, too.
Same can be said for “Plessy v Ferguson”

Roe was a fabrication. “Made up out of Whole Cloth”.

If the court had simply declared the law unconstitutional on equal protection grounds it might have stuck. But once they fabricated the right to privacy and legislated the trimester it had a target. It’s what happens when the court tries to establish political policy.
User avatar
Toonces
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:52 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by Toonces »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:29 pm Same can be said for “Plessy v Ferguson”

Roe was a fabrication. “Made up out of Whole Cloth”.

If the court had simply declared the law unconstitutional on equal protection grounds it might have stuck. But once they fabricated the right to privacy and legislated the trimester it had a target. It’s what happens when the court tries to establish political policy.
I don't know, it would seem to me that the current court is looking to establish political policy.

Thomas has indicated that they should revisit some of the other decisions. Considering he voted against Obergfell and Lawrence he clearly sees them as not deserving of Constitutional protection. He now sits with the majority. So it would take two of Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Gorsuch to vote with the "liberals". Roberts might be an outside chance but the rest seem...unlikely. Based on what I'm reading from you, you believe that two of those five would vote to retain the constitutionality of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. I don't share that confidence given that Thomas would appear to want to overturn them and welcomes the opportunity.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by ZoWie »

Looks like I've broken my no-twitter pledge.

BIG rumble in downtown LA. Large crowd engaging LAPD in two locations and a freeway blockage in a third being worked by CHP. Tactical alert called. Officers down. Ambulances in route.

Definitely a protest of the court decision. Homeland Security is also issuing warnings.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
bradman
Posts: 2543
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:03 am
Location: Home of the DFL

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by bradman »

It's been hung in the balance ever since it's inception.
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. [Will Rogers]
gounion
Posts: 17250
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:39 pm More from Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence.

“ But the parties’ arguments have raised other related questions, and I ad- dress some of them here.
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar- riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecti- cut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over- ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related le- gal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).”

Griswold and the like are not in danger. And lower courts have been put on notice the Dobbs can’t be used for precedent outside of an abortion case. Even Justice Thomas agrees “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.”
Kav is a lying sack of shit. Ask Susan Collins. Go back to his sworn testimony, how Roe is settled law. Via NBC News:
“This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon," Collins said in a statement.

She blasted the ruling as "a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government."

Manchin said he's "deeply disappointed" in the justices.

"I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans," he said.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch provided critical votes to assemble a Supreme Court majority to eliminate Roe v. Wade.

Critics of Manchin and Collins described them as naive, if not willfully ignorant of what some said at the time was the likely endgame if the two conservatives were added to the court.

Kavanaugh told the Senate at his 2018 confirmation hearing that the Roe decision "is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times." Gorsuch, at his 2017 hearing, said of Roe that "a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court."
But hey, we're supposed to trust what Kav says THIS time, right? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry, we're not as big a fool as YOU are.

There's no way Clarence Thomas would make that statement if he didn't have five votes to overrule those cases, because the Religious Right is going to spend tons of money and effort to line up cases for them to use to overturn the decisions.

But hey, it's delusional to think a wife of a Supreme Court Justice would be involved in armed rebellion against our government, too, right?
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by ProfX »

Can't have it both ways. If the right to privacy is "fabricated," then Griswold needs to go, also. Of course, I don't agree that it is.

Of course, I'm one of those folks, who doesn't think the Constitution only protects rights that are specifically and precisely enumerated at the founding, either. After all, it doesn't explicitly mention "executive privilege" either.

And as we all know, in 1776, the rights to women were not much being discussed, especially given as at that time they couldn't vote, have property in their own name, etc etc.

We knew from the leaked draft opinion Alito would also make the bogus claim that abortion has no legal tradition in this country. Once agan, a load of crap. While surgical abortion is a 19th century invention, pharma abortifacients were known, and as many legal scholars in this country have pointed out, most of the colonies and earliest states did not criminalize abortion until after "quickening". This is not that different from Roe's framework. You could note it is then rooted in traditions of this country.

The stricter laws on abortion are products of the 19th century, largely pushed, at least originally, by Catholics, the rise of the option for surgical abortion (which is WHY the Pope THEN felt the need for the encyclical on abortion and FIRST started pushing "life begins at conception"), and then later dovetailing with eugenics.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
ap215
Posts: 6050
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:41 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by ap215 »

No he's not.

Manchin ‘alarmed’ by Kavanaugh, Gorsuch’s votes on Roe

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he was “alarmed” that Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade after testifying that they believed the case was settled legal precedent during their confirmation hearings.

Manchin tweeted on Friday that he was “deeply disappointed” that the court chose to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has provided constitutional protections for abortion for nearly half a century.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... es-on-roe/
gounion
Posts: 17250
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by gounion »

greengrass is hilarious. He's pretending the Court isn't going after these other decisions. But Thomas wrote:
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
And the three dissenting judges have been in these discussions, and they know where the Court is headed:
“And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” the three liberals wrote. “The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”

“The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by carmenjonze »

gounion wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:24 am greengrass is hilarious. He's pretending the Court isn't going after these other decisions. But Thomas wrote:
Actual title of this piece: Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

Also:

Obergefell, the plaintiff in the SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling, said it's 'quite telling' Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases - BI
Loving v. Virginia, which protects the right to interracial marriage and also concerns the due process clause of the 14th amendment, was not a part of Thomas' list.

Thomas himself is in an interracial marriage with right-wing activist Ginni Thomas.

"I'm just concerned that hundreds of 1000s of marriages across this nation are at risk and the ability of people across this nation to marry the person they love is at risk," Obergefell said. "And for Justice Thomas to completely omit Loving v. Virginia, in my mind, is quite telling."
[quote"He is opposed to our equality, he's opposed to our ability to actually be part of 'We the People,'" Obergefell said. "So this concurring opinion, to me, is just a roadmap for opponents of LGBTQ+ equality to come after those decisions and to make sure that we know they believe we are second class citizens not worthy of protection not worthy of equality, so I'm just concerned."[/quote]
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by carmenjonze »

ap215 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:19 am No he's not.

Manchin ‘alarmed’ by Kavanaugh, Gorsuch’s votes on Roe
F. this guy.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Roe down, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell next on chopping block

Post by ProfX »

ap215 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:19 am No he's not.

Manchin ‘alarmed’ by Kavanaugh, Gorsuch’s votes on Roe

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he was “alarmed” that Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe v. Wade after testifying that they believed the case was settled legal precedent during their confirmation hearings.

Manchin tweeted on Friday that he was “deeply disappointed” that the court chose to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has provided constitutional protections for abortion for nearly half a century.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... es-on-roe/
So I'm so glad that Manchin and Susan "deeply concerned, strongly worded letter" Collins are alarmed and feel deceived.

Next question: what are they going to DO about it? Will they support Senate efforts to codify Roe into federal law? Will they impeach Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. (I don't think there's any grounds for doing it to "handmaiden" Barrett -- she barely concealed her antipathy to Roe.) Or will they remain as useless as always? Only time will tell.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Post Reply