Roe v. Wade is going down

[Red]

They’re not using any form of philosophy other than voicing their cultural grievances through their now majority rulings.

“But it’s not the end of that effort. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the five conservative justices who voted to strike down Roe, also made it clear that he wants the court to revisit same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and queer rights.

In his concurrence, Thomas wrote that “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,’ ... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Obergefell is the 2015 5-4 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in that case, and a candidate for the Ohio state House, criticized Thomas on Friday, noting in a statement that he is “a Supreme Court justice appointed by humans, he is not the Supreme Deity.”

“The millions of loving couples who have the right to marriage equality to form their own families do not need Clarence Thomas imposing his individual twisted morality upon them,” Obergefell wrote. “If you want to see an error in judgment, Clarence Thomas, look in the mirror.”

Clarence Thomas Says Why Stop at Abortion When We Can Undo the Entire 20th Century

We knew LGBTQ rights were under attack. The Supreme Court just confirmed it.

www.vice.com

 

[Gameface]

USA is becoming more and more appalling as a country. Sorry for all good folks living there. Come to Canada. We may not be perfect but it would be major improvement over what you have in USA now.

I've looked into it and it isn't so easy to just move to Canada and be allowed to work.

 

[The Thriller]

I think you're being alarmist and taking focus away from the real issues here. What would an investigation into a possible miscarriage/abortion look like? Did that exist before? Is anyone talking about doing that. Would they force the woman to get a medical examination to maybe prove that it was an abortion? Are states abortion restrictions worded in such a way as to establish anything like this?

Am I being alarmist? Are we sure?

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

The sweeping suggestion from the current court’s longest-serving justice came in the concurring opinion he authored in response to the court’s ruling revoking the constitutional right to abortion, also released on Friday.

I mean they’re saying it out loud, right?

 

[The Thriller]

“But it’s not the end of that effort. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the five conservative justices who voted to strike down Roe, also made it clear that he wants the court to revisit same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and queer rights.

In his concurrence, Thomas wrote that “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,’ ... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Obergefell is the 2015 5-4 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in that case, and a candidate for the Ohio state House, criticized Thomas on Friday, noting in a statement that he is “a Supreme Court justice appointed by humans, he is not the Supreme Deity.”

“The millions of loving couples who have the right to marriage equality to form their own families do not need Clarence Thomas imposing his individual twisted morality upon them,” Obergefell wrote. “If you want to see an error in judgment, Clarence Thomas, look in the mirror.”

Clarence Thomas Says Why Stop at Abortion When We Can Undo the Entire 20th Century

We knew LGBTQ rights were under attack. The Supreme Court just confirmed it.

www.vice.com

I don’t know how much clearer they can get. They’re telling us right now what’s going to be on the chopping block soon. It’s just… right there. Out in the open. Like when Trump would tell us which crimes he was committing and no one took it seriously because it was done out in the open in front of everyone.

Frankly, I’m getting tired of folks telling us that we’re being alarmist despite us being right about every damn thing in the last several years. We told you trump was a demagogue. We told you he was going to rip people off. We told you he wasn’t going to pass any health care plans or solve any real problems. We told you he wasn’t going to accept the election results. We told you he wasn’t going to go away quietly. And we’re telling folks on this board today that the activist Supreme Court is going to take rights that you take for granted today and run them through a wood chipper because they hate the Current culture. and we’re still being called alarmist?! It’s getting to be ridiculous the lack of imagination many in America continue to have.

Authoritarianism preys on people’s lack of imagination. It can and is happening here. Wake the **** up folks! LGBT rights are going to have their time in the barrel soon.

 

[One Brow]

Am I being alarmist? Are we sure?

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

I mean they’re saying it out loud, right?

The other 5 justices did not concur with Thomas's opinion here. He's alone in those thoughts on SCOTUS. IIRC, in the draft, the presence of the fetus made Roe a particular case not like the others.

However, I am amused he does not include Loving vs. Virginia in his list, even though it's based on the same legal principles. I wonder why?

 

[Gameface]

Am I being alarmist? Are we sure?

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.

www.politico.com

I mean they’re saying it out loud, right?

I wasn't talking about any of those things. I was talking about investigations into miscarriage looking to prove illegal abortions. I mean ****, maybe that's going to be a thing and if it is then it's horrendous. I think there are going to be some situations like ectopic pregnancies that are forced to go on that are going to kill women and not result in a living baby and it's going to start looking really bad for the anti-abortion crowd. If they want to witch hunt women who miscarry I think they'll look worse still.

 

[One Brow]

I wasn't talking about any of those things. I was talking about investigations into miscarriage looking to prove illegal abortions. I mean ****, maybe that's going to be a thing and if it is then it's horrendous.

We offered a couple of cases where it's happened.

 

[Gameface]

We offered a couple of cases where it's happened.

Yeah with specific circumstances and in a world where Roe V Wade existed. Thriller's post made it sound like every miscarriage would trigger an investigation and we'd be building new prison camps for all the women falsely convicted of aborting their babies.

 

[The Thriller]

The other 5 justices did not concur with Thomas's opinion here. He's alone in those thoughts on SCOTUS. IIRC, in the draft, the presence of the fetus made Roe a particular case not like the others.

However, I am amused he does not include Loving vs. Virginia in his list, even though it's based on the same legal principles. I wonder why?

Or they're being coy with it. Keep in mind, both Kavanaugh and Barett said that Roe was settled law and they'd respect precedent. I think clearly Thomas and Alito drive this court and if they truly desire to roll back on these rights, they'll intimate their way to a majority.

Haha, yes, I think we all know why he won't touch Loving v Virginia. Funny how that's settled law yet Miranda wasn't despite being one year older... Hmmm...

 

[One Brow]

Yeah with specific circumstances and in a world where Roe V Wade existed. Thriller's post made it sound like every miscarriage would trigger an investigation and we'd be building new prison camps for all the women falsely convicted of aborting their babies.

Don't be silly. Wealthy people won't be suspected.

I agree The Thriller is putting forth the worst possible outcome. It's probably a little far-fetched. It's not impossible, as seen by prosecutions for miscarriage happening regularly in Nicaragua.

 

[One Brow]

Or they're being coy with it. Keep in mind, both Kavanaugh and Barett said that Roe was settled law and they'd respect precedent.

I'm sure the judges would still say they respected precedent and stare decisis. Outside of Manchin, Collins, and Murkowski, who really believed that they would not overturn Roe?

I think clearly Thomas and Alito drive this court and if they truly desire to roll back on these rights, they'll intimate their way to a majority.

Maybe. Robert's refused to vote to end DACA, and he's been shifting a little to the left over the course of his term.

Haha, yes, I think we all know why he won't touch Loving v Virginia. Funny how that's settled law yet Miranda wasn't despite being one year older... Hmmm...

It will be hard to overturn cases like Griswold while not overturning cases like Bakke.

 

[Zombie]

Or they're being coy with it. Keep in mind, both Kavanaugh and Barett said that Roe was settled law and they'd respect precedent. I think clearly Thomas and Alito drive this court and if they truly desire to roll back on these rights, they'll intimate their way to a majority.

I don't think there's any reason to take the legal arguments of these justices at all seriously.

The court is a nakedly partisan institution, the last week of rulings should be enough evidence for anyone to see that they will use whatever arguments they see fit to fulfill their political goals.

 

[The Thriller]

I don't think there's any reason to take the legal arguments of these justices at all seriously.

The court is a nakedly partisan institution, the last week of rulings should be enough evidence for anyone to see that they will use whatever arguments they see fit to fulfill their political goals.

Right. Which is why if you can imagine it getting worse, then you’re probably right. There is no bottom with these guys. They’ll do anything to keep their base at the Federalist Society happy. They’re an active arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is an authoritarian party.

 

[The Thriller]

I'm sure the judges would still say they respected precedent and stare decisis. Outside of Manchin, Collins, and Murkowski, who really believed that they would not overturn Roe?


Maybe. Robert's refused to vote to end DACA, and he's been shifting a little to the left over the course of his term.


It will be hard to overturn cases like Griswold while not overturning cases like Bakke.

Perhaps?

But roberts vote is no longer needed for the majority. So even if he sides with liberals on a variety of these issues, Republican activists have his vote to spare, winning 5-4 instead of 6-3.

 

[One Brow]

But roberts vote is no longer needed for the majority. So even if he sides with liberals on a variety of these issues, Republican activists have his vote to spare, winning 5-4 instead of 6-3.

Perhaps. Kavanaugh seems to vote with Roberts more than most of the other justices. Gorsuch and Barrett each have their own priorities.

I like that you and people like you are putting up warning signs. It's important to remind people what could happen.

 

[One Brow]

The court is a nakedly partisan institution, the last week of rulings should be enough evidence for anyone to see that they will use whatever arguments they see fit to fulfill their political goals.

Do you have an example of different rulings that used incompatible logic? I agree they are partisan, but that doesn't mean they don't take the law and interpretation seriously.

 

[Zombie]

Do you have an example of different rulings that used incompatible logic? I agree they are partisan, but that doesn't mean they don't take the law and interpretation seriously.

I don't know if you'd consider this incompatible logic exactly, but in the recent second amendment case the majority opinion was justified in part by historical precedent. Of course they cherry picked the hell out of what was "historical enough" and what wasn't to fit their agenda. But that historical analysis was nowhere to be found when they ruled on public funds being used for religious schools.

I'm sure they take the law seriously. But you're kidding yourself if you think that seriousness extends very far beyond how to use their interpretation of the law to reach decisions that suit their politics.

 

[Gameface]

 

[One Brow]

I don't know if you'd consider this incompatible logic exactly, but in the recent second amendment case the majority opinion was justified in part by historical precedent. Of course they cherry picked the hell out of what was "historical enough" and what wasn't to fit their agenda. But that historical analysis was nowhere to be found when they ruled on public funds being used for religious schools.

I'm sure they take the law seriously. But you're kidding yourself if you think that seriousness extends very far beyond how to use their interpretation of the law to reach decisions that suit their politics.

That's an interesting example, and I don't know all the details. I do know that the difference between public and religious schools was much blurrier 100 years ago than it is today, and the government was much more overt in favoring religious organizations. Would historical precedent logic have changed the outcome?

 

[Zombie]

That's an interesting example, and I don't know all the details. I do know that the difference between public and religious schools was much blurrier 100 years ago than it is today, and the government was much more overt in favoring religious organizations. Would historical precedent logic have changed the outcome?

That entirely depends on what historical precedence the majority decided to consider. If they considered only jurisprudence and societal norms from before 1940, probably not. If they considered precedence established since then, probably so.

But I think they understood that making an argument that drew from a society's view of religion's (read christianity's) role in government that is very different from that of today's probably wouldn't be very persuasive, so they ignored it. And that's my entire point really, these people aren't stupid. They'll find whatever argument they need that best suits their purpose.