Posted on 12/02/2021 9:42:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was sworn in on October 23, 1991. Beginning in 1996, he would take a 10-year break from asking questions from the bench, until the first case before the Court following the death of Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, his ideological soul mate.
While still measured, Thomas has been known to take lawyers to the mat when he sees fit to do so. Wednesday morning’s oral arguments in the Mississippi abortion case — that threatens to weaken Roe v. Wade if not overturn it — provided Justice Thomas the perfect opportunity to do just that, with a round of tough questions for the “pro-choice” lawyers.
Justice Thomas wants to know on what the right to abortion is constitutionally basedhttps://t.co/V952hLhhEi
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) December 1, 2021
Here’s a perfect example.
Justice Thomas: Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a previable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?
Pro-abortion attorney Rikelman: That’s not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body.
Thomas: 1, Rikelman: 0.
Justice Thomas: Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a previable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?
Pro-abortion attorney Rikelman: That's not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body. https://t.co/ENAWSu1Jpo
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) December 1, 2021
Thomas later asked:
“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is, is it specifically abortion? Is it a liberty? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?”
Jack Posobiec, the senior editor at Human Events, weighed in on Thomas’s performance, as well.
Thomas is reeling them in now
He’s asking them to tell him where any of this is written in the Constitution
Abortion Beckys are flailing about
They know there is no textual basis for Roe v Wade
Thomas is reeling them in now
He's asking them to tell him where any of this is written in the Constitution
Abortion Beckys are flailing about
They know there is no textual basis for Roe v Wade
— Jack Posobiec ✝️ (@JackPosobiec) December 1, 2021
As Election Wizard saw it, there were two “incredible moments” during today’s oral arguments.
Two incredible moments today from oral arguments at the Supreme Court on abortion.
1) Justice Thomas’ brilliant questioning about child neglect that tripped up the pro-abortion lawyers.
2) Justice Sotomayor’s bizarre remark that evidence of fetal pain is not proof of life.
How hypocritically left-wing of Sotomayor.
So here we are. As reported by The Washington Post Wednesday afternoon, “the [f]ate of Roe v. Wade is in the hands of” the Court following a “spirited day of debate.”
The Court, suggested The Post, “signaled that it is on the verge of a major shift in its abortion jurisprudence after hearing nearly two hours of arguments from attorneys for Mississippi, an abortion provider from the state, and the Biden administration.”
Ya know, you gotta hand it to the Democrats.
Despite controlling both chambers of Congress, the White House, and the “mainstream” media, things aren’t exactly going all that swimmingly on their side of the tracks. Crisis after self-inflicted crisis, several federal courts effectively blocking Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates across the country, and now a strong possibility that the liberal abortion mantra Roe v. Wade might very well get its wings clipped or “worse,” I’m honestly hard-pressed to come up with a single major area where things are on the right track for the left.
Pity, ain’t it?
So, let’s go, Brandon! Keep up the good work!
Yes he did, God bless!
When he asks a question it is because he knows no one else on the Court would have the nerve to do so.
Roe v Wade was a bad ruling.
And Justice Thomas thinks that bad ruling should be over turned. It is why I like him so much. The rest of the Court is a bit to enamored of things like stare decisis. Mistakes should be corrected.
If the Democrats pack the court, you might be a little alarmed at what they determine to be "mistakes."
Well then, I guess a black slave's pain is not proof of life either.
I never did believe that Sotomayor was a “wise Latina”. She again proves she is not with her ridiculous statement.
Like demoncRATS have EVER honored stare decisis or even plainly written law when it conflicted with their perverted desires.
If there is one thing I am sick of it is people who are afraid to do anything because "de democrats will do something if we do". They will do it no matter what we do.
So put on your big boy pants and walk out of fantasy land. This is not a gentleman's game and it never was.
Obviously you’ve got the keyboard tough-guy logic method down pat.
Clarence Thomas is a national treasure and a national hero. He is a true patriot and defender of the constitution. I’ve also heard that the SCOTUS clerks of all political stripes say that he’s long been the nicest justice.
It’s almost hilarious how the left drags out their tired old propaganda that “a woman has a right to make choices about her body” when the very same people have spent the last year vociferously denying that any of us have the right not to be injected with a risky, experimental RNA concoction with minimal efficacy for its stated purpose.
Plus the baby is NOT the mothers body. It has a different genome.
Boy do I love this man! What a GIANT among midgets.
Thank God for Clarence Thomas
Rush did some really nice pieces on him in the past, lots of info about hismlife and growing up.
Hes one of the dwindling few real conservatives on the court
Well you have to feel a very small amount for the libtard smallies
They have an incredibly crap case to argue for
There is nowhere in the constitution they can point to that codifies abortion as a right
The unwise latina’s statement means nothing as she isn’t a medical expert and its incredibly unscientific and flat wrong
And in fact I didn’t think a justice hearing the case is supposed to be acting as if shes a lawyer arguing the case
I don’t think it matters how much stronger the anti-abortion argument is than the pro-abortion. This decision is likely to be made on political grounds. Breyer,
Kagan, and Sotomayor will support abortion, regardless of the arguments. I fear that Roberts, despite his seemingly anti-abortion questions, will engage in his usual betrayal and take one other weakling with him. In big cases, Roberts can be depended upon to sell out.
May God bless this good man. We are blessed to have him on our side.
2022 is an election year and the demonRATs are already puke'n blood.
There is no way in hell that they will try to 'pack the court' between now and Nov, 2022 and after that, they shouldn't be in a position to do so.
If the demonRATs "win" the mid-terms, there may well be Rev-II.
“Oh please.
Like demoncRATS have EVER honored stare decisis or even plainly written law when it conflicted with their perverted desires.
If there is one thing I am sick of it is people who are afraid to do anything because “de democrats will do something if we do”. They will do it no matter what we do.
So put on your big boy pants and walk out of fantasy land. This is not a gentleman’s game and it never was.”
This is the most cogent and precise statement of the state of affairs. Well done.
Our Republic is dying because so-called conservatives refuse to fight because someone might accuse them of not playing nice, or because they fear the libs attacking them on the playground during the next PE class.
“There is nowhere in the constitution they can point to that codifies abortion as a right.”
THIS is what will lead to the overturn of Roe. I agree life starts at conception, and all the moral arguments, but this is really a matter of a bad court ruling.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade in 1973, they had to come up with something to base their decision. They chose the 14th Amendment and then manufactured a right to privacy from it.
They justified it by coming up with what they called “Emanations from the penumbras,” meaning they manufactured a connection when there was none. It just feels like it should be a right. This should scare everyone, liberal and conservative because it represents a judiciary that is out of control and not representative of the people. Judges rule on the existing law, they don’t write new law. If you don’t like a law you can change it through the legislature, an elected body, not through court rulings of appointed Judges.
Because judicial activism lacks any standards, it cedes unchecked power to judges. Judicial activism is a favorite of the political left and the Democratic Party. Since most of what they want cannot happen through the ballot box, such as the definition of marriage, they overturn the will of the people with Judicial activism.
I wonder how long he has been waiting to ask that question.
ML/NJ
Good post.
Roe v Wade was a crackpot decision by any reasonable standard.
In normal times the arguments would have only been persuasive to insane asylum residents.
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.