What other rights will be taken away next now that Roe is gone?

The given reason that they struck down Row is that "The constitution provides no implicit right to abortion"

There are MANY rights we have that are not explicit in the constitution. Are all of them in danger now?

In the entire history of this country, never has the supreme court recognized a right, and then have it taken away. Let alone taken away 50 years later.


So whats next?

Here is a list of all the cases that I think will be destroyed, and taking away more rights from even more Americans.

Obergefell vrs Hodges - The right to same sex marriage. Say goodbye to equal rights for homosexuals. And if your already married? Your marriage will be annulled most likely.

Lawrence vrs Texas - Sodomy will become illegal again. HOWEVER, it will only be gay people who get prosecuted.

Loving Vrs Virginia - Long shot on this one, but the right to inter racial marriage. ( and yes, some republican senators are already bringing this up )

Griswald Vrs Connecticut - The right to contraception. They have already said they wish to abolish many forms of contraception. They lie all the time about IUD's for example. But most women should consider most forms of birth control to be toast in the very near future. Who knows what they will require of people who already have an IUD.

And make no mistake. Republicans do NOT want the states to decide these issues. Thats just a smoke screen in order to get the rulings they wish. They actually DO want national bans on abortion. And if Trump gets power, and thy take control of the house and senate. Thats going to happen.

The over turning of Roe is just the beginning of a massive right wing take over of this country to rule the majority by the minority.

 

Pure fear mongering hogwash.

 

Justice Thomas has ALREADY expressed his desire to revisit ALL of these cases.
Republican Senators are ALREADY talking about contraception cases.


Tell my why this is fear mongering?

 

I think the area of gay marriage is a dead issue, that bell can’t be unrung. There are too many of them, and as legal parters they have contracts in their name plus adopted kids.

I’m not against gay couples having the exact same rights as straight couples, I just wish a new word could be used other than marriage as it will differentiate the two, even you had to put the word gay in front of marriage so we knew what you were referring to.

 

Can you please clarify what you mean in the bold bit.

 

People thought the same thing of RvW

And Justice Thomas has already signaled that he would like ALL of these laws revisited.

I am sure you will see cases filed within a week challenging just these laws.


As for calling it marriage..... THen fine. Get the state ENTIRELY out of the marriage game. Make it a 100% religious ceremony that bestows NO RIGHTS WHAT SO EVER to them.

Until that happens. All I can say is "Separate but equal"

We all saw how well that turned out.

 

It means that Republicans want a national federal ban on abortion that would apply to all 50 states.

It means they would like to ban ( and nullify ) all gay marriages across the nation.

It means they want to outright ban many forms of contraceptives nation wide.

 

Making marriage religious would mean a lot of people could not call themselves married, specifically atheists. Marriage historically and worldwide has been between one man and one woman. If there can be words that define numerous genders, or even terms like birthing persons, all for the purpose of defining something specific, then why not a develop a specific word word for SSM? It actually seems like a no brainer.

 

RW activist Supreme Court is going to go extreme and try to turn the clock back -- while hiding behind the constitution. Wait for it, they are going to force their minority, ultraconservative agenda on the country, as predicted. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are just total nut jobs. I had hope for Barrett, when she was confirmed, but she is a disappointment, joining the RW fringe. There is only one RW centrist on there, Roberts.

Unfortunately, this is how it will be. The RW controlled the SC for 50+ years, however, it was never as bad as it is today, with total ideologues ruling the roost. And the Dems are dreaming if they can change the rules and increase the number of SC seats. That doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that the Senate, which confirms SC justices, is ruled by a RW minority, which is going more and more extreme. 40 million more votes for the Dems just to reach parity in the Senate. Says it all. It's hopeless.

 

Actually it would easier to get married.

 

States rights are back like it's the 1860s.

Anything not explicitly stated in the constitution is going to become a states rights issue.

Gay marriage is dead man walking.

 

What right has been taken away? Abortion isn’t outlawed.

 

The blow to the first has already been forgotten.

 

It's possible they could overrule Oberfell v Hodges. But I doubt the other ones will be.

 

Revisiting doesn't mean over ruling roofie Wade violated the 10th amendment Ruth bader Ginsburg herself said it was bad law.

All this time that we were relying on bad law why didn't the Congress do anything Democrats had control of the house hands in it in 11 legislative sessions in that time period and they didn't do anything

 

Thirteen states have trigger laws in place in the event Roe was struck down. I don't agree that states don't want to decide these issues...I think they've been chomping at the bit to prove to their constituents that they are ready, willing and - now - able to ban abortions. Will be interesting to see the reactions of their constituents, as the majority of Americans did not want to see the overturn that occurred today.

 

No real thought in that post. The majority decision explicitly anticipates this claim and refutes it. Read the actual decision before you embarrass yourself further.

When the Court states no federal power to enact a national regulation of abortion, this is the jurisdiction of the States, just how exactly does this allow "the minority to rule the majority" when any State regulation MUST have the support of the majority and has no power outside of that State?

 

Although I agree that the OP is mostly hysteria, he was correct that Thomas in his concurring opinion did make the point that previously poorly decided decisions should be revisited:


Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion excerpted on Twitter, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence V. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodge — the rulings that currently protect the right to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction, the right to a same-sex relationship, and the right to same-sex marriage.

From Thomas' concurring opinion: "... 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..."

I would agree with Thomas that those cases were poorly decided, however they are all different from Roe in that all of those issues they addressed are all currently legal, with no ability by the states, to change or modify them. If those decisions were to be reversed, for example and Connecticut wanted to criminalize contraception, it would have to pass a law to criminalize contraception. You have to wonder what state would actually do that? Answer: none.

 

Abortion never was a right.

 

True, but keep reading, Thomas is making a deeper point. The 14th amendment has a Due Process Clause and a Privileges and Immunities Clause. An early decision, made shortly after ratification of the 14th amendment essentially wrote the Privileges and Immunities Clause out of the 14th amendment, which created a hole in the obvious intent of the Amendment, which over the years has been backfilled by the Due Process Clause, by pretending that the Due Process Clause in addition to guaranteeing all American Persons what we all understand as Due Process, that it also has a magical element labeled with the term of art "Substantive" Due Process where Judges slide in many of the things that are properly affirmed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

This has been one of Justice Thomas' pet projects, to recognise the fiction that is the "substantive" due process and where rights are legitimately secured by the privileges and immunities clause, do so there rather than using this magical application of the Due Process clause.

As you read through his concurrence, he anticipated the demagoguery of his point, and explicit states more than once that this decision only deals with abortion and nothing else.

The Majority decision also anticipates this and repeatedly goes to great lengths to disabuse of that notion as does Kavanaugh's concurrence.

​

 

Looks like Thomas is going full Taliban. He looks different (no long beard and turban), but the mentality is the same, including the love for guns and the desire to go back to the middle ages.

 

No right was taken away, the ruling simply means that abortion is not a federal matter under the Constitution.

Which is the correct ruling.

Murder is not a Federal matter either.

 

Due Process is clearly a bedrock constitutional right, "substantive due process" is a legal fiction, that has been used to confirm rights that are more properly affirmed under the Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Constitution, that's all. If you continue reading Thomas' concurrence, he makes that perfectly clear. And anyone who has been paying any attention to Thomas knows that making the Privileges and Immunities clauses of the Constitution Great Again has been a long term project of the good justice that you slander by likening him to a terrorist.

 

Um no. Not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

 

Acting as if the constitution gave rights that it never mentioned is in fact ignoring exactly what the constitution was designed for.