- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Clarence Thomas says court should now reconsider same sex marriage and contraception
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:06 am
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:06 am
Thomas suggests court reconsider contraception, same-sex marriage rulings
Return to menu
By Eugene Scott and Ann Marimow
Liberal politicians and activists have argued that other rights would be at risk of being overturned if the court did away with Roe v. Wade — and Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to confirm that Friday.
In a separate opinion, Thomas expressed his support for revisiting other Supreme Court rulings that he and other conservatives believe should be left to individual states. For example, he wrote that the court should move forward with revisiting the right to contraception and the right for same-sex couples to marry.
“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” he wrote.
Obergefell v. Hodges established the right to same-sex marriage in 2015. But Thomas — and other conservative justices — argue that the Constitution lacks an explicit reference to the right and therefore voters should decide whether that right should exist in their respective states.
Return to menu
By Eugene Scott and Ann Marimow
Liberal politicians and activists have argued that other rights would be at risk of being overturned if the court did away with Roe v. Wade — and Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to confirm that Friday.
In a separate opinion, Thomas expressed his support for revisiting other Supreme Court rulings that he and other conservatives believe should be left to individual states. For example, he wrote that the court should move forward with revisiting the right to contraception and the right for same-sex couples to marry.
“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” he wrote.
Obergefell v. Hodges established the right to same-sex marriage in 2015. But Thomas — and other conservative justices — argue that the Constitution lacks an explicit reference to the right and therefore voters should decide whether that right should exist in their respective states.
28
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:06 am to Eurocat
This is going to get 10000000000000000000x more coverage than Thomas wanting to eradicate the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause (he's been writing about that for like 20 years now and nobody gave a frick). This is just what he does.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:07 am to Eurocat
He wants to revisit all substantive due process cases because they are all bullshite from a reasoning standpoint, but that nuance will never filter through the media.
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 10:08 am
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:07 am to Eurocat
quote:
Obergefell v. Hodges established the right to same-sex marriage in 2015. But Thomas — and other conservative justices — argue that the Constitution lacks an explicit reference to the right and therefore voters should decide whether that right should exist in their respective states.
The constitution was pretty clear that the states should have power but instead the fed used the courts to politically remove state power - HES RIGHT
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:08 am to Eurocat
quote:
Obergefell v. Hodges established the right to same-sex marriage in 2015. But Thomas — and other conservative justices — argue that the Constitution lacks an explicit reference to the right and therefore voters should decide whether that right should exist in their respective states.
he's 100% correct
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:08 am to Eurocat
He’s right.
Doesn’t mean what the Dems think it means.
Contraception (Griswold v Connecticut) was decided as such because of “right to privacy”, which doesn’t exist.
It being re-heard means that it either remains under a more correct interpretation of the constitution or it returns to a state level issue.
And even Utah is unlikely to ban contraception.
Doesn’t mean what the Dems think it means.
Contraception (Griswold v Connecticut) was decided as such because of “right to privacy”, which doesn’t exist.
It being re-heard means that it either remains under a more correct interpretation of the constitution or it returns to a state level issue.
And even Utah is unlikely to ban contraception.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:08 am to Indefatigable
quote:
He wants to revisit all substantive due process cases because they are all bullshite from a reasoning standpoint, but that nuance will never filter through the media.
He's very much states rights and doesn't like federal overreach.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:09 am to Eurocat
quote:
But Thomas — and other conservative justices — argue that the Constitution lacks an explicit reference to the right and therefore voters should decide whether that right should exist in their respective states.
Not sure if it's a "winning" issue or not, but it's correct. It's time to base things on the Constitution and its explicit meaning again, instead of political activist justices warping the meaning via word salad.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:10 am to Eurocat
The left NEVER should have gone after Justice Thomas wife!!
You f@$K with the bull, you get the horns!!
You f@$K with the bull, you get the horns!!
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:10 am to Eurocat
quote:
“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” he wrote.
does not equal
quote:
Clarence Thomas says court should now reconsider same sex marriage and contraception
This is nothing more than
quote:
Liberal politicians and activists
Whining and gnashing their teeth. FWIW, it's all in your post, easy to see.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:11 am to teke184
I think Thomas is ok being the Left's bad guy.
In a way, the left brought this onto themselves with their shenanigans' at his confirmation
In a way, the left brought this onto themselves with their shenanigans' at his confirmation
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:12 am to Eurocat
That's just the concurrence. The decision went to great lengths to say it did not want to mess with Griswold etc.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:12 am to Eurocat
State Rights
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 10:14 am
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:13 am to teke184
The rationalle behing Roe was that while it was not stated clearly, the notiong of a right to privacy does exist.
You don't have to state something clearly to make something apparent.
Mafia guy to shop keeper "Nice store you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it" is an example where outright nothing was said but a clear message existed and Roe said the same was said, that people, on a Federal Level, have the right to be left alone.
The fact is if the GOP was actually a libertarian party and didn't have so many Christians in it the GOP might be for abortion in a "keep government small and out of things" way.
You don't have to state something clearly to make something apparent.
Mafia guy to shop keeper "Nice store you got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it" is an example where outright nothing was said but a clear message existed and Roe said the same was said, that people, on a Federal Level, have the right to be left alone.
The fact is if the GOP was actually a libertarian party and didn't have so many Christians in it the GOP might be for abortion in a "keep government small and out of things" way.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:13 am to Eurocat
Yes, please
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:13 am to ScottFowler
THIS IS A HIGH TECH LYNCHING!!
THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY!
F THE LEFT!
THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY!
F THE LEFT!
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:14 am to Eurocat
Thomas being sly.
Ginny been getting him in trouble lately. Subtle attempt to get his marriage de facto annulled by trashing Loving.
(this is sarcasm)
Ginny been getting him in trouble lately. Subtle attempt to get his marriage de facto annulled by trashing Loving.
(this is sarcasm)
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:15 am to Eurocat
Penumbras and enumerations are NOT the constitution or amendments thereof.
Said penumbras and enumerations were explicitly created by the court in Griswold, which is the contraception case from the early 60s.
Said penumbras and enumerations were explicitly created by the court in Griswold, which is the contraception case from the early 60s.
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 10:16 am
Posted on 6/24/22 at 10:15 am to udtiger
quote:
Obergefell v. Hodges established the right to same-sex marriage in 2015. But Thomas — and other conservative justices — argue that the Constitution lacks an explicit reference to the right and therefore voters should decide whether that right should exist in their respective states.
he's 100% correct
Every single state outlaws polygamy. Gays and lesbians have no more right under the Constitution to get married than do 3 or 4 people in a polygamous relationship.
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 10:16 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News