Thomas: SCOTUS should reconsider right to contraception, same-sex sexual activity, gay marriage

[867-5309.]

...Then, he took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry.

Justice Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.

This kind of language is just what advocates for reproductive rights and for L.G.B.T.Q. rights have been fearing. Defenders of the right to abortion have repeatedly warned that if Roe fell, the right to contraception and same-sex marriage would be next...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html

[Aristus]

1. Does he want to bring back the Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson decisions, too?

Just asking...

[Vinca]

2. Isn't this kind of a slippery slope for old Clarence seeing as he's in a bi-racial marriage?

[onenote]

4. Not really. Loving v VA relied on the equal protection clause

Thomas' objections are based on his opposition to the concept of substantive due process. So he could (and probably would) distinguish Loving from those other cases.

For the record, I'm explaining how he would distinguish it, not why. And I'm certainly not endorsing his view on substantive due process.

[Frasier Balzov]

9. Obergefell was based on equal protection too.

So Thomas will need to trim that concept back to race alone.

[onenote]

11. Obergefell cited the synergy between the equal protection clause and due process clause

but equal protection wasn't really a separate, independent basis for the decision, as it was in Loving.

[33taw]

3. Is he going to go after Loving vs. Virginia?

[onenote]

5. See post #4.

Last edited Fri Jun 24, 2022, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Also, I'm unaware of any state that still has a law on the books that bars inter-racial marriage, so I'm not sure how such a case could be brought.

[33taw]

13. Just give Texas a chance and they will pass a law. Honestly, I do not expect this to happen.

[d_r]

6. Its so weird

he didn't include Loving virginia in his list of 14th amendment cases

[Beachnutt]

7. Wonder why he left out interracial marriage..

[Lettuce Be]

15. I'm wondering the same thing -- he's slime, knew it watching his confirmation, know it now

[onenote]

19. Because, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Loving was based on a different constitutional

provision.

The equal protection clause was the primary (and an independent) basis for striking down inter-racial marriage bans. Roe did not rely on the equal protection clause.

[Comfortably_Numb]

8. And of course the treason weasel's husband, the most useless of useless pieces of shit,

said the quiet part out loud. “Fuck you plebes, I’ll strip away every one of your rights in retaliation for calling me a disgusting pervert in my confirmation hearings.” Even though Clarence the clown is a disgusting pervert.

[Binkie The Clown]

10. Don't forget that Scopes was found guilty, and the SCOTUS overturned that ruling.

They should reexamine that ruling too, and make the teaching of evolution a crime again.

After all, they cannot let such heresy stand. Accepting the literal truth of the Bible should be made the law of the land once more.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. About inter-racial marriages?

[Ace Rothstein]

14. Anyone who thinks this guy is going to be forced to retire is completely off their rocker.

[Hekate]

16. KnR

[Boomerproud]

17. Why do these "errors " have to be corrected ?

Pretty full of himself making any civil right illegal because he doesn't like it.

[IngridsLittleAngel]

18. He is a vile, nasty monster in a robe

He loves hurting people - from Anita Hill as an individual, to many vulnerable groups. It's obvious this asshole's goal in making it to the ECOTUS was to inflict pain and misery, and tear apart freedom and rights. No doubt he is loving being on an extreme, right-wing activist court, and knowing they can cause more damage. Yesterday was just the beginning.

You know what error needs to be corrected? You being on the Court. Confirming you was a mistake then. It's become a bigger mistake with each passing day of your heartless, evil ass holding one of those 9 seats.

Even terrorists don't hate America the way this creep does.