Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Supreme Court should overturn same-sex marriage in scathing attack

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Obergefell v. Hodges was the landmark 2015 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Two of the dissenters in that ruling were Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito — and now, Thomas and Alito are calling for that decision to be overturned. This comes at a time when there is a very real possibility that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a far-right social conservative nominated by President Donald Trump, will be replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a petition, Thomas and Alito argue that Obergefell was an attack on religious freedom, saying, "The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"

Half a decade ago, the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges came from both the left and the right. Justice Anthony Kennedy, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan in 1987, sided with Ginsburg in that decision. Kennedy was fiscally conservative, yet his libertarian streak showed itself when he agreed with Ginsburg on social issues like gay rights, same-sex marriage and abortion.

But the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed a lot since Obergefell. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters in Obergefell, died in 2016 and was replaced by Justice Neal Gorsuch — another social conservative — in 2017. Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch wasn't a game-changer for the high court, but when Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018 and was replaced by the more socially conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that was a game-changer. And now, with Barrett likely to replace Ginsburg, the Supreme Court is facing the possibility of an even greater game-changer — one in which Obergefell could be in danger along with Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and many other right-to-privacy decisions.

https://news.yahoo.com/justice-clarence-thomas-suggests-supreme-164300399.html

[roamer65]

1. Same scenario as Roe v Wade.

It would fall back to the states.

Yet again it would be another wedge issue to divide the states.

[jmowreader]

8. I believe you know what would happen

A hard-right state would come up with a case arguing that marriage is an "article of interstate commerce" because all the accessories you need for a wedding (dresses, tuxedos, flowers, etc., etc., etc.) cross state lines in ordinary commerce, and lots of people cross state lines to get married - going to Hawaii or Vegas, for instance. Once the court validated that marriage is, in fact, an article of interstate commerce then a right-wing Congress would be within their rights to ban same-sex marriages.

The question is, would they then be able to nullify the millions of already-existing same-sex marriages (which they would do in a second if they thought they could) or would that be an unconstitutional ex post facto law?

[RKP5637]

9. Some are really intent in destroying the US and making it another totalitarian country

and the hell with any individual rights.

[KPN]

32. THIS

[David__77]

18. Not exactly. I believe federal Defense of Marriage Act is still in place.

If so, it would be effective again, and all same sex marriages would be invalid from the perspective of the federal government, Social Security, taxes, etc.

[roamer65]

34. I think a Dem House, Senate and President would repeal DOMA.

That requires us to VOTE.

And you are right, I forgot about DOMA.

[David__77]

35. I believe so as well.

Provided, of course, that the filibuster is not in place.

[Retrograde]

23. Why stop there?

Why not go back even further and reconsider Brown v Board of Education? Or United States vs Wong Kim Ark - you know the far right wants to cripple the notion of birthright citizenship?

I have always failed to see how allowing same sex marriage is an interference in one's religion: if you don't approve of same sex marriage, don't send a wedding gift, but otherwise shut up about it.

[MurrayDelph]

40. If Obergefell was overturned

Wouldn't some redneck town use the decision to fight Loving v Virginia?

[texasfiddler]

2. If young people started consistently voting in numbers, this would destroy the GOP

[SoonerPride]

4. If Amy Covid Barrett is on the bench, there won't be any more voting.

Period.

[texasfiddler]

6. Praise Be!

[Newest Reality]

16. Blessed be the fruit!

[kairos12]

42. Under His Eye.

[AleksS]

3. I will never understand how YOUR marriage affects

MY freedom.

These people just love to hate.

[RKP5637]

11. It is inherent in their brain structure. They are programmed to hate. And that is their essence of

life, and they often use religion to enable their hatred.

[Earthshine2]

29. It makes them feel better about themselves when they judge you.

It's a cheap thrill, but it seems to be the best they can muster.

Those who would arbitrarily judge others are obviously unhappy in themselves.

[phylny]

5. Do divorce first, Clarence.

[NightWatcher]

7. From the guy on the Court who's marriage was once considered illegal...

You cannot take away rights.

[spooky3]

10. "Oh, yeah? Hold my Coke." Taking away rights from many groups of

Americans is on the agenda if Barrett is appointed.

[RKP5637]

12. Each day, I just find the concept of America going away. It's saddening to see

what some would love to turn the US into.

[grumpyduck]

13. What the hell is it to them?

Don't they have more critical stuff to strike down?

[Sympthsical]

14. It'd be a disaster for Republicans

I’d be surprised if they did it. Too many married couples now, too much family of married couples.

And the LGBT community does not play.

All the activism the past twenty years? That’s us mildly pissed off. Us white hot furious?

Good luck.

[SWBTATTReg]

15. Such reckless hate, uttered by a supreme court justice...Millions have since married since being ...

allowed to, when this was allowed. And those rights are being trampled as we speak. Very unbecoming as an American, and as a human being.

[RKP5637]

21. Much as Trump, some of them really don't give a sh** and are unfit to be on SCOTUS. n/t

[Chainfire]

17. I have always wanted to visit Iran or North Korea

I just didn't think I could do it by leaving my driveway.

[Silent3]

19. I read the article, but I don't get the context of this petition, or when it was issued

"In a petition, Thomas and Alito argue that Obergefell was an attack on religious freedom..."

What petition? Petition to whom? When? Related to what case, if any?

[vercetti2021]

20. Am I the only one who hopes this fucker dies during Biden's presidency?

Idk man...you wanna take my goddamn right away? Go fuck yourself rapist

[RKP5637]

22. Same feelings. I am so fed up with haters and destroyers like this in positions of power. n/t

[vercetti2021]

25. I hope both him and Alito meet the grim reaper

Poetic justice that Biden replaces Thomas

[RKP5637]

27. It certainly would be! n/t

[vercetti2021]

28. I'll never understand why

Why they are so hell bent in the LGBT community being left to die without rights. We don't hurt anyone. Especially transgender people like myself soon.

[RKP5637]

30. They are inbred with hatred. They are mentally programmed for hatred as a brain function.

LGBT gives them a handy target and then they can back their hatred with religion. It's so damn disgusting. These are the last types of people one would want on SCOTUS.

[vercetti2021]

33. I agree

Like I was gonna postpone transitioning due to ACB. But fuck that I'm gonna continue with my plan. No one will stop me

[RKP5637]

36. These people will run others right over given the chance. It's all about authoritarianism and

hatred with them. Don't let them try to run/ruin your life, and it seems you have decided to stop them. "No one will stop me" Good!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Which religious liberty does gay marriage violate?

How does that work?

[RKP5637]

31. These types, the haters, make no sense. It is an inbred brain function. n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

26. Some conservative court challenges:

1) The Court would be acting with judicial activism instead of following precedent (i.e., past cases);

2) The Court would be overturning a precedent established 5+ years ago. That's really too soon to decide to go 180 degrees;

3) The Court would likely use the argument of the First Amendment Free (Religious) Exercise Clause, IOW, that allowing same-sex marriage seriously and truly prevented the practice of a certain religion. Here's the challenge: The Court has consistently divided the right to believe from the right to practice religious beliefs. For example, the Court has ruled against polygamous marriages, saying its prohibition doesn't interfere with the right to believe in Mormonism. The Court has prohibited Native Americans from smoking peyote as part of its religious rituals, finding that its prohibition protected the general public from illegal substances and didn't have a significant impact on the beliefs of the Native Americans. Unless the Court is ready make a broad-based new standard for "anything goes" as long it's to practice one's religious beliefs, any attempt to prohibit same-sex marriage would fail.

[Arthur_Frain]

37. This is why I want a scorched earth policy should we get the senate and the White House.

No more bipartisan bullshit, they never, ever have shown us the same respect.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

38. Will this invalidate my marriage?

[In It to Win It]

39. Your religious freedom to deny everyone else a certain freedom

[hunter]

41. Clarence Thomas can fuck off and die as well.

He and Trump are going to the bad place, scorned by history.

[tanyev]

43. Say...were Thomas and Alito at the Rose Garden Massacree and Super Spreader Soiree?