"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS should reconsider contraception"

Clarence Thomas omitted the case that legalized interracial marriage after saying the courts should go after other right to privacy cases

What about this precedent on interracial marriage, Clarence?!! (Loving v. Virginia)

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade.

Clarence Thomas said the court should "reconsider" rulings on same-sex marriage and relationships.

Jim Obergefell said Thomas omitted rulings on interracial marriage because it "affects him personally."

Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff behind the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, said Friday that Justice Clarence Thomas omitted Loving v. Virginia on his list of Supreme Court decisions to "reconsider" because it "affects him personally."

"That affects him personally, but he doesn't care about the LGBTQ+ community," Obergefell

"The Reid Out."

In a 5-4 decision released Friday, the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. The majority opinion argued that the 14th amendment, which prevents states from depriving citizens of "life, liberty, or property without the due process of law," does not protect the right to abortion.

In a concurring opinion following the ruling, Thomas wrote that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

These cases protect the right to contraceptive access, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage, respectively.

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.


https://www.businessinsider.com/ober...irginia-2022-6

 

Why shouldn't all rulings be reconsidered when cases come before the Court? That's how decisions are made.

 

No he didn’t include Loving V VA because that case was ACTUALLY about the right to marry. Meaning if you saw a black and a white couple in a park having a marriage ceremony you could go over there and stop it through force of law. They did not have the right to marry

But, contrary to what the homosexuals have argued… Obergfel was NOT about the right to marry. You could not stop two gay guys in a park from having a ceremony and giving each other rings and saying vows. They had every right to do that. Obergfel was about GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION of gay marriage and the benefits that confers.

 

The Constitution doesn't mention race either. You should read it.

 

Okay, so put in the water supply at any location near a Star Trek convention!

 

I knew RvW was just going to be the first step. Now, that they have smelled success with their minority-based SC RW activist "majority", they'll go further. These types will not rest until they have the US back in the 1800s. We can see it from the responses to this thread. These types are the same everywhere in the world, the Irish Catholic, the Zionist, Orthodox Jews, the Fundamentalist Islamists, and the list goes on. The US evangelical RW extremists fit right in with this group. And, just like in Israel, they have an outsized grip on policy and law decisions.

 

Of course it is not. And everyone but the most naive and dumb know it. The rest are only playing politics. They are getting desperate.

 

I'm pretty sure that's because his argument was against the substantive due process reasoning and Loving relied on the Equal Protection Clause instead, but I admit we're pretty far into the legal weeds on this and I'd welcome some actual lawyers chiming in.

Not all "privacy" cases have the same legal reasoning, and in Thomas' eyes, the legal reasoning matters.

 

If there were a need (there isn't) to codify the availability of contraceptives then there is a process to accomplish that - and it IS NOT via the courts. Thomas is only being consistent.

 

This.

 

Because then our rights change based on the court every few years. Not how it’s supposed to work.

 

The SC has always been limited in the amount of cases it takes up. You make it sound as if suddenly the flood gates are going to be flung opened. Take a deep breath. Relax. The sky is not falling.

 

This “not mentioned in the Constitution” bit is old and lame, bullets are not mentioned in the Constitution, so I guess one can ban the making, selling, and transfer of all bullets

Get the point?

 

A gun that is empty is hardly very effective. Your comparison is just plain stupid. Sorry.

 

Another one with the “not mentioned in the Constitution, as I just asked, so with this logic bullets could be banned, the making, selling or transferring of bullets in America since bullets are not mentioned in the Constitution

Silly analogy, but proves the point, the Constitution isn’t static, even Jefferson, the greatest strict constructionist, admitted such

 

But yes or no, bullets are not in the Constitution, they are not, you are inferring beyond what was written, it is a simple analogy, but proves the point, if one is restricted to just what is actually written in the Constitution, we would be living in the 18th Century

 

When he says take another look at contraception what is he saying

 

A gun is designed to hold bullets. The logic of your argument is sorely absent.

 

Whole argument over privacy is inane, the SCOTUS is saying the Government has the right to control a persons body, the individual doesn’t, but the government does, it can dictate to a women what they want her to do with her body. Just the thought is absurd

 

At least they're consistent.

 

Embarrassing so, but they don't see it.

 

You are proving my point

You said if it wasn’t in the Constitution it is not allowed, obviously bullets are not in the Constitution, yet, because of extenuating considerations, “a gun is designed to hold bullets,” you determined they have Constitutional protection. You inferred beyond what was actually written, what the Founding Fathers authored, which you say no one can do

 

That contraception isn't a right, and thinking it is a right is both stupid and irrelevant. That rights inferred from inferred rights is both stupid and wrong.

It stems from the leftist desire for everything they want to be a right.

You know, like a place to live, money, and who knows what else. Rainbows probably.

 

No, his, and apparently your, obstinateness to fact facts

 

LoL.