Posted on 06/24/2022 11:20:39 AM PDT by fruser1
The 74-year-old justice, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, went on to declare the court should reconsider other cases that fall under previous due process precedents.
Thomas' argument was entrenched in the belief that since the Constitution’s Due Process Clause was found not to secure a right to an abortion in Friday's ruling, the court should apply that same logic to other landmark cases.
He cited three in particular - including 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut, which allowed for married couples to buy and use contraception, and 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which allowed same-sex couples to legally marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Baby steps.
Yet it was the gay lobby, before gay marriage was given the Supreme Court's stamp of approval, who kept saying, "How is my gay marriage going to hurt your straight marriage?" Now look at the results of LGBT "empowerment", with tiny children getting sexualized, groomed or trans-"affirmed" in taxpayer-supported schools, and the military more focused on pronouns than the many threats posed around the world and across our porous border.
Whether your marriage is religious or not does not determine whether there actually is a God, and One who organically set into motion the binary man-woman system of reproduction and accompanying social organization. Everything has natural limits; the Founders called them "Nature and Nature's God."
Our government was founded on observing those natural limits while not forcing anyone to worship or pay taxes to support a Federally-mandated denomination, as is still the case in UK, Germany and other European nations. And certainly not on forcing the populace to pay for abortion, transgender surgery, or the "lactation-support needs" of pregnant women in combat training in the military.
Schumer's family was not Catholic; his parents were Ukrainian Jews. Maybe he's related to Zelinskyy?
Neither, apparently, is Pelosi's, except in name only; but they say they are.
God bless and keep SCJ Thomas.
I think this issue will be determined by the laws of each state. The SCOTUS doesn't make laws; it comments on whether a law is properly aligned with the Constitution. And Roe isn't, and never was.
Classic Bullshit article with the writer doing their own interpretation of what Justice Thomas might have said.
The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion of the decision penned by Thomas, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex sexual activity, and citizens' access to birth control.
Asshole forgot to mention that China will launch an all out missile attack on the U.S. right before the contraceptive and gay marriage issues are decided.
Yes Griswald was part of the building block of penumbras and emanations. to build precedent based on the scotus to decide based on “My point is that there is no provision
of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court’s belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. “
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting.
LOL!
Nobody is suggesting ‘banning’ either.
Don’t fall for the leftist propaganda that’s trying to frighten everyone.
i’m pro birth control.
period.
ps
I was calling Joe a bonehead and a hack, not you.
Nobody’s suggesting taking it away from you.
This decision doesn’t interfere with birth control. And if the Griswold case will be handled by the SCOTUS in the future, it will be on points of how our laws are meant to operate, not a mandate to outlaw birth control. Sale of birth control will remain with the state legislatures.
Good.
“What does this ruling mean for someone who travels into another state to have the abortion? That is crossing state lines to commit which is a felony in that persons home state.
I think this issue will be determined by the laws of each state. The SCOTUS doesn’t make laws; it comments on whether a law is properly aligned with the Constitution. And Roe isn’t, and never was. “
Terrorists who murder Americans on foreign soul can be prosecuted in the United States, so the precedent is there to prosecute crimes committed in other jurisdictions.
Yet. What Justice Thomas igis saying is that cases like that which rely on the same logic for their decisions as the Roe case did could, and should, be reviewed. But it's not up to the court. Someone needs to file suit and work their way to the Supreme Court where the court needs to agree to accept it. Not a done deal, though I'm sure that many would like to try.
I notice that Justice Thomas didn't include Loving v. Virginia in his list. Wonder why? </sarcasm>
(I notice that Justice Thomas didn’t include Loving v. Virginia in his list.)
Why do you think that is?
Look up what Loving v. Virginia overturned.
I don’t know the argument behind the ruling in that case; but are you implying that a biological man and a biological woman entering into marriage is the same as two men or two women ‘marrying’?
A mixed race man and woman, something as loathsome in Virginia in the 60's as same sex marriage is to many today. Much the same legal logic that was used in the Loving decision was the same as used in Roe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.