Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sheldon Whitehouse: 'There is a plan, and this is just part of it.' [View all]LetMyPeopleVote
(174,482 posts)12. The target has always been the right to privacy
This is the asshole who drafted the Texas abortion law. This asshole wants to strike down the implied right of privacy by getting Roe overruled which would/could lead to striking down the right to same sex marriage. interracial marriage, gay sex and other rights
There is a pattern here. These assholes want to get rid of Griswold and undo the right of privacy. That would cause Lawrence v. Texas (consensual same sex intercourse), Cooling v. Virginia (inter-racial marriage), birth control and same sex marriage to be overturned.
Link to tweet
https://www.comicsands.com/jonathan-mitchell-overturn-gay-marriage-2655065691.html
Though Mitchell's brief, also signed by his co-counsel Adam Mortara, dedicates much of its time to the Texas abortion law's defense, it also questions "lawless" pieces of legislation, namely the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which decriminalized gay sex nationwide, and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage.
Though the brief does not say reversing Roe v. Wade would threaten the same-sex marriage ruling, it does say that
It goes on to add that while the Supreme Court should not necessarily overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, it should consider these two rulings as "lawless" as Roe v. Wade and, by extension, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Though the brief does not say reversing Roe v. Wade would threaten the same-sex marriage ruling, it does say that
""the news is not as good for those who hope to preserve the court-invented rights to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage
"These 'rights,' like the right to abortion from Roe, are judicial concoctions, and there is no other source of law that can be invoked to salvage their existence."
It goes on to add that while the Supreme Court should not necessarily overturn Lawrence and Obergefell, it should consider these two rulings as "lawless" as Roe v. Wade and, by extension, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
"This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case."
"But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe."
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think that the For Profit Prison Industry needs help. Will SCOTUS reverse Gideon and Miranda?
Red Pest
May 2022
#5
The Founders really thought there would be a Constitutional Convention every few decades
Tommymac
May 2022
#18
This is why Mitch McConnell refused to let the Senate consider Judge Merrick Garland.
Botany
May 2022
#10
"Failed to consider", hardly describes this act. It was outright theft of a Supreme Court pick, a
GoodRaisin
May 2022
#45
Then maybe we look for "our" billionaires and start trying to get them to do something.
Doremus
May 2022
#38
At this rate, is it a stretch to think women's right to vote could be on the chopping block?
dlk
May 2022
#21
Making them all felons for getting abortions or using birth control accomplishes that
CousinIT
May 2022
#32