Posted on 12/01/2021 12:17:56 PM PST by Right Wing Vegan
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who tends to stay quiet during oral arguments, was bursting with key questions to ask both sets of legal counsel as the court heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Wednesday.
Justices sat down for nearly two hours to hear arguments on whether laws such as Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban are unconstitutional. It’s a raging national debate that has set the stage for Roe v. Wade to possibly be overturned and could save countless unborn babies’ lives.
Here are three strong points the unusually outspoken Thomas raised during the hearing.
1. There Is No Constitutional Right to Kill Babies
Knowing full well that there’s no explicit, constitutionally guaranteed right to kill babies in the womb, Thomas asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to explain just what exactly the United States’s governing document allows for abortion.
“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” Thomas asked.
Later, Thomas clarified that he understands “we’re talking about abortion here” but pointed out that certain constitutional amendments are very clear about what they protect and none of them mention the right to murder unborn babies.
“What is confusing is that we, if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about because it’s written, it’s there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?” he asked.
2. There Are Two Lives at Stake in Every Pregnancy
During another line of questioning, Thomas repeatedly demanded both speakers on the pro-abortion legal team differentiate between prohibiting a mother from aborting her baby and stopping her from taking drugs or other substances that harm her baby.
“Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?” Thomas asked.
Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights had no answer for Thomas other than the claim “that’s not what this case is about.”
Thomas later repeated the question to Prelogar.
“You heard my question to counsel earlier about the woman who was convicted of criminal child neglect. What would be your reaction to that as far as her liberty and whether or not the liberty interests that we’re talking about extends to her?” Thomas asked.
Prelogar claimed she’s not denying a state might have interest in that case but said they also need to consider the “interests of the woman on the other side of the scale and not being forced to continue with a pregnancy, not being forced to endure childbirth, and to have a child out in the world.”
“And the state’s arguments here seem to ask this court to look only at its interests and to ignore entirely those incredibly weighty interests of the woman on the other side,” Prelogar claimed. 3. Roe v. Wade Can’t Legally Stand On Its Own
In an exchange with Rikelman, once again Thomas hinted that the supposed general legal precedent set by Roe v. Wade isn’t enough to justify the removal of states’ voices when it comes to abortion policy.
“What I’m trying to focus on, is if we — is to lower the level of generality, or at least be a little bit more specific. In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay. … And I’m trying to get you to tell me what are we relying on now? Is it privacy? Is it autonomy? What is it?” Thomas asked.
He’s my favorite Justice.
Clarence Thomas is the best Justice on the court. His decisions are based on the Constitution.
Closest to a pure legal scholar even in the big court, rarely any policy BS in his analysis.
Justice Thomas refuses to believe in the magical Constitution that says whatever the leftists want it to say...
Clarence Thomas has been my favorite person in DC for decades.
Mostly, I suspect, what they are relying upon is witchcraft.
God bless Justice Clarence Thomas
He certainly well understands that when balancing the right of the inborn to live the
...incredibly weighty interests of the woman on the other side
ought not to include any element of inconvenience to the mother.
Great judge greater man
Your Honor, it’s based on what we want. We want to kill babies with no limits and force taxpayers to fund it. We will go about it any way we can. We will twist the Constitution to mean what we want it to mean. If you rule against us, we will ignore it and pretend you didn’t. If abortion is outlawed, we will continue to promote illegal abortions because we want them. Laws do not apply to us your honor, but we do prefer to fashion the laws according to our whims and use them to bludgeon our political adversaries. Amending the Constitution is too difficult right now, so we insist that you make it say what we want it to say, your Honor.
Amen.
He and his wife enjoy camping. Often people he encounters say, “You really resemble Clarence Thomas.” His standard reply is, “Yeah, I hear that a lot.”
Inconvenience for the mother for a few months or death to the child which is forever.
The mother has a choice for sure, if she chooses to keep her legs closed everyone wins.
2. There Are Two Lives at Stake in Every Pregnancy
At LEAST two lives... if there’s twins, or triplets, etc. - there’s more.
Not to mention the father’s life, or, even the life of any kids the aborted kid would have.
I wonder how many Nobel Prize winners have been literally flushed down the drain.
Breaks my heart.
For those wondering, the opposition is arguing the right to an abortion is protected under the 14th Amendment, which prevents any state from depriving a person of their liberty.
bhl wrote:
“
For those wondering, the opposition is arguing the right to an abortion is protected under the 14th Amendment, which prevents any state from depriving a person of their liberty.
“
When the opposition brings up the 14th amendment, Justice Thomas ought to ask “what about the 14th amendment rights of the baby?”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4017386/posts
~~~~~~~
1. There Is No Constitutional Right to Kill Babies
Knowing full well that there’s no explicit, constitutionally guaranteed right
to kill babies in the womb, Thomas asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth
Prelogar to explain just what exactly the United States’s governing
document allows for abortion.
“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is? Is it
specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” Thomas
asked.
….
~~~~~~~
We already have the answer from the Church of Satan.
“Freedom of religion”.
God help us.
~Easy
If we had 9 Justice Thomas’s, we’d have a good chance at restoring the Republic.
Great questions from a great man.
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.