The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Kamaji on June 24, 2022, 06:59:21 pm
-
Clarence Thomas Calls To 'Reconsider' Gay Marriage, Sodomy Rulings
The other justices declined to join him, but the future of the Supreme Court rulings on those matters remains unclear.
SCOTT SHACKFORD
6.24.2022
In today's Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade (1973), Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion. But he also wrote a separate concurrence arguing that the logic behind today's ruling should also apply to previous Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage, sodomy, and the right to access contraceptives.
Today's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruled that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to an abortion. In the opinion, Justice Samuel Alito determined that the right to an abortion is not "rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."
Alito's decision, however, very clearly explains that he's not trying to claim that any right that isn't "rooted in the Nation's history" is potentially subject to being tossed out. This language was in the leaked draft opinion as well. He holds that part of what makes abortion different is that it involves the "destruction of a 'potential life.'" The decision states outright:
And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.
He specifically name-checks Obergefell v. Hodges (the 2014 ruling that mandated gay marriage recognition) and Griswold v. Connecticut (the 1965 ruling that stopped states from criminalizing contraception) as precedents he is not attempting to challenge with the Dobbs decision. He later reiterates that those decisions "are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.'"
But Thomas wrote separately to say the court should reconsider those cases too. While abortion may be a unique issue involving human life, Thomas sees these other precedents as errors of the court because he fundamentally disagrees that the concept of "substantive due process"—that "due process" protects not just procedures but fundamental rights—has a constitutional foundation. Thomas has a history of arguing that the Due Process Clause does not actually guarantee rights but that proper procedures are followed.
* * *
Source: https://reason.com/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-calls-to-reconsider-gay-marriage-sodomy-rulings/
-
20 years ago, I was of the opinion that what homosexuals did in the privacy of their own homes and beds was their own business.
Now, we are being deluged and force fed this faggotry 24/7. The activism has gotten way to far, even to the point of trying to steer children toward queerdom. That is past an outrage. If these f'ers would be low key and live their lives in peace instead drowning us in their rainbow shit, I'd think Thomas' opinion would be out of line
Instead, their extreme activism as back fired. And I strongly believe that I am not the only one of this opinion.
-
20 years ago, I was of the opinion that what homosexuals did in the privacy of their own homes and beds was their own business.
Now, we are being deluged and force fed this faggotry 24/7. The activism has gotten way to far, even to the point of trying to steer children toward queerdom. That is past an outrage. If these f'ers would be low key and live their lives in peace instead drowning us in their rainbow shit, I'd think Thomas' opinion would be out of line
Instead, your extreme activism as back fired. And I strong believe that I am not the only one of this opinion.
@catfish1957
Don't know how one could feel any other way. :beer:
They always seem to over-extend. Part of their strategy.
Obama's THIRD term right now.
Starting with the Afghanistan withdrawal, equipment abandoned, you cannot name a single POSITIVE thing this 'Regime' has accomplished.
In fact, if you wanted to destroy everything and bring chaos...tell me one fk'n thing he isn't doing right! And the GOP sit there rotating on their thumbs.
The Obamas need to be SWATTED like they did to Jeffrey Clark yesterday.
-
20 years ago, I was of the opinion that what homosexuals did in the privacy of their own homes and beds was their own business.
Now, we are being deluged and force fed this faggotry 24/7. The activism has gotten way to far, even to the point of trying to steer children toward queerdom. That is past an outrage. If these f'ers would be low key and live their lives in peace instead drowning us in their rainbow shit, I'd think Thomas' opinion would be out of line
Instead, your extreme activism as back fired. And I strong believe that I am not the only one of this opinion.
@catfish1957 WADR, whose "extreme activism"?
-
20 years ago, I was of the opinion that what homosexuals did in the privacy of their own homes and beds was their own business.
Now, we are being deluged and force fed this faggotry 24/7. The activism has gotten way to far, even to the point of trying to steer children toward queerdom. That is past an outrage. If these f'ers would be low key and live their lives in peace instead drowning us in their rainbow shit, I'd think Thomas' opinion would be out of line
Instead, your extreme activism as back fired. And I strong believe that I am not the only one of this opinion.
No, you are not alone.
-
@catfish1957 WADR, whose "extreme activism"?
The loudest and most obnoxious militant homosexuals, and their complict woke mouthpieces. (MSM, Hollywood, etc.)
I as a Pa Pa, should not have to explain two men kissing on TV to my grandchildren.
-
The loudest and most obnoxious militant homosexuals, and their complict woke mouthpieces. (MSM, Hollywood, etc.)
I as a Pa Pa, should not have to explain two men kissing on TV to my grandchildren.
@catfish1957
Ok. Then I completely agree with you. I read your post as implying the activism was mine (obviously a misreading), and just wanted to double-check before I responded.
So, yes, I agree completely. If they hadn’t let themselves be controlled by the pedos, groomers, and public display fetishists, they’d be in a better position.
-
@catfish1957
Ok. Then I completely agree with you. I read your post as implying the activism was mine (obviously a misreading), and just wanted to double-check before I responded.
So, yes, I agree completely. If they hadn’t let themselves be controlled by the pedos, groomers, and public display fetishists, they’d be in a better position.
Sorry for the confusion. I'll amend my original post.
-
Sorry for the confusion. I'll amend my original post.
No worries!
:thumbsup:
-
20 years ago, I was of the opinion that what homosexuals did in the privacy of their own homes and beds was their own business.
Now, we are being deluged and force fed this faggotry 24/7. The activism has gotten way to far, even to the point of trying to steer children toward queerdom. That is past an outrage. If these f'ers would be low key and live their lives in peace instead drowning us in their rainbow shit, I'd think Thomas' opinion would be out of line
Instead, their extreme activism as back fired. And I strongly believe that I am not the only one of this opinion.
You are not the only one. Gratuitous faggotry and a show ends, I don't care if it has ten seasons left. That was the last episode I watch of it.It got so bad on Netscape i was almost running a pool as to how many episodes of a show would be completed before the writers nuked it. The average was about three.
How come there are warnings for violence, nudity, even smoking, but not homosexuality?
-
You are not the only one. Gratuitous faggotry and a show ends, I don't care if it has ten seasons left. That was the last episode I watch of it.It got so bad on Netscape i was almost running a pool as to how many episodes of a show would be completed before the writers nuked it. The average was about three.
How come there are warnings for violence, nudity, even smoking, but not homosexuality?
Yeah! I tried to watch "The Wire" recommended by @sneakypete but the gay sex ran me off pretty quickly. Lots of others as well.
-
Thomas has his head up his ass if he is opposed to the legality and availability of contraceptives.
-
Yeah! I tried to watch "The Wire" recommended by @sneakypete but the gay sex ran me off pretty quickly. Lots of others as well.
@Bigun
Granted,my memory is kinda fried from "chemo brain" as well as the passage of time,but I honestly don't remember homo sex as being a regular part of that series.
-
@Bigun
Granted,my memory is kinda fried from "chemo brain" as well as the passage of time,but I honestly don't remember homo sex as being a regular part of that series.
@sneakypete
Police Lt. And her entourage ring any bells?
-
20 years ago, I was of the opinion that what homosexuals did in the privacy of their own homes and beds was their own business.
Now, we are being deluged and force fed this faggotry 24/7. The activism has gotten way to far, even to the point of trying to steer children toward queerdom. That is past an outrage. If these f'ers would be low key and live their lives in peace instead drowning us in their rainbow shit, I'd think Thomas' opinion would be out of line
Instead, their extreme activism as back fired. And I strongly believe that I am not the only one of this opinion.
Them that don't know history are doomed to repeat it. And them that don't know prophecy are astonished when it occurs.
A direct mechanical result of calling good evil and calling evil good.
-
Thomas has his head up his ass if he is opposed to the legality and availability of contraceptives.
No he is not. Such decisions DO NOT belong to the limited federal government, but to the States respectively and to the People. And if you don't like what a state enacts, then move to a state more to your liking.
That is how it is supposed to work. That IS Federalism.
-
No he is not. Such decisions DO NOT belong to the limited federal government, but to the States respectively and to the People. And if you don't like what a state enacts, then move to a state more to your liking.
That is how it is supposed to work. That IS Federalism.
:yowsa: A thousand times yes! pointing-up
-
@sneakypete
Police Lt. And her entourage ring any bells?
@Bigun
Nope. Could be I just ignored them because I tend to ignore things that irritate me.
It also provides me with a break so I can get my coffee cup refilled,visit the toilet,feed the cats,etc,etc,etc.
-
Them that don't know history are doomed to repeat it. And them that don't know prophecy are astonished when it occurs.
A direct mechanical result of calling good evil and calling evil good.
@roamer_1
I guess you are a believer in witchcraft,too?
-
No he is not. Such decisions DO NOT belong to the limited federal government, but to the States respectively and to the People. And if you don't like what a state enacts, then move to a state more to your liking.
That is how it is supposed to work. That IS Federalism.
@roamer_1
BullBush! EVERYBODY that is a citizen in EVERY state has the same Constitutional rights
as everyone else.
And if you don't like it,move to a country that suits you better.
-
:yowsa: A thousand times yes! pointing-up
@Bigun
So,you too believe that it is the business of the various states to determine who can and who can not practice birth control?
-
@roamer_1
I guess you are a believer in witchcraft,too?
@sneakypete
As a matter of fact I do - There would be no need for the power of the divine if not for the power of the arcane and occult.
You are in the midst of it - all around you.
-
@roamer_1
BullBush! EVERYBODY that is a citizen in EVERY state has the same Constitutional rights
as everyone else.
And if you don't like it,move to a country that suits you better.
@sneakypete
Birth control is not a constitutional right.
-
Personally, I believe that contraception and marriage are absolutely no business of ANY government. Those are personal choices, and government should butt out. Abortion is and always was a different matter because it involves existing human life, the protection of which is a legitimate concern of our local and state governments, but not the Federal government, as the Constitution makes clear by its design.
-
@roamer_1
BullBush! EVERYBODY that is a citizen in EVERY state has the same Constitutional rights
as everyone else.
And if you don't like it,move to a country that suits you better.
Amendment X to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-
Personally, I believe that contraception and marriage are absolutely no business of ANY government. Those are personal choices, and government should butt out. Abortion is and always was a different matter because it involves existing human life, the protection of which is a legitimate concern of our local and state governments, but not the Federal government, as the Constitution makes clear by its design.
Good for you. Then move to a state that is like-in kind...
Personally, I have nothing against birth control. But I am fine with folks in another state seeing that otherwise. Just like I ain't much for blue laws (liquor)... But I would be alright with state laws requiring stores be closed on Sunday - and mind you: I do not believe the Sabbath is on Sunday. Still if them folks want to observe it that way, it sure wouldn't cause me to move. Liquor laws might - though I usually drink my liquor from a jar, and not much of that.
Different strokes for different folks. I would love to hear church bells once again of a Sunday morning, and the ten commandments back in front of the courthouse, where they belong.
-
Amendment X to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Exactly right.
-
The loudest and most obnoxious militant homosexuals, and their complict woke mouthpieces. (MSM, Hollywood, etc.)
I as a Pa Pa, should not have to explain two men kissing on TV to my grandchildren.
True.... The very reason I watch very little TV.
-
@Bigun
So,you too believe that it is the business of the various states to determine who can and who can not practice birth control?
You are a master at putting words never said by them into the mouths of others @sneakypete and I, for one, do not appreciate it even a little bit!
To rephrase what @roamer_1 said, and what I agreed with, is that it is none of the feral government's damned business! And, as @libertybele correctly pointed out, that leaves it to the states and the people.
In our constitution the STATES that formed the union spelled out 17 very specific things that they granted the federal government powers to do. NONE of them have anything at all to do with birth control or abortion.
-
You are a master at putting words never said by them into the mouths of others @sneakypete and I, for one, do not appreciate it even a little bit!
To rephrase what @roamer_1 said, and what I agreed with, is that it is none of the feral government's damned business! And, as @libertybele correctly pointed out, that leaves it to the states and the people.
In our constitution the STATES that formed the union spelled out 17 very specific things that they granted the federal government powers to do. NONE of them have anything at all to do with birth control or abortion.
pointing-up :yowsa:
EXACTLY right.
-
Amendment X to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And don't forget about this one either @libertybele :
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-
And don't forget about this one either @libertybele :
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Thank you for pointing that out.
-
Thomas has his head up his ass if he is opposed to the legality and availability of contraceptives.
The SCOTUS only decides the Constitutionality of a law. It isn't supposed to write them.
With that in mind, Thomas and the Court might revisit what level of government should be deciding what constitutes "marriage", what constitutes "obscenity", or 'unacceptable behaviour'.
At one time, those definitions were left to the several States to legislate, and not be forced to abandon the standards held in some states to acquiesce to the lower standards held in others.
This is a return to States' Rights, and the possible end of 'one size fits all' Federal concentration of power. It also forces the groups which now coalesce nationally to lobby every Statehouse and Governor's office to get their way instead of just muck up DC, which means their 'causes' will have to spend a bunch more to show up at that many places, and may be show up as smaller crowds.
Contraceptives, imho, are the single most seminal reason that abortion can be readily restricted (aside from it being murder), because the situation that many say calls for abortion can be avoided by the judicious use of Contraceptives. I do not see anything that prevents becoming pregnant being banned, simply because it removes much of the case for abortion.
-
You are a master at putting words never said by them into the mouths of others @sneakypete and I, for one, do not appreciate it even a little bit!
@Bigun It is not MY fault you didn't understand I wrote a question.
To rephrase what @roamer_1 said, and what I agreed with, is that it is none of the feral government's damned business! And, as @libertybele correctly pointed out, that leaves it to the states and the people.
In our constitution the STATES that formed the union spelled out 17 very specific things that they granted the federal government powers to do. NONE of them have anything at all to do with birth control or abortion.
[/b]
FWIW,I agree with you.
-
The SCOTUS only decides the Constitutionality of a law. It isn't supposed to write them.
With that in mind, Thomas and the Court might revisit what level of government should be deciding what constitutes "marriage", what constitutes "obscenity", or 'unacceptable behaviour'.
At one time, those definitions were left to the several States to legislate, and not be forced to abandon the standards held in some states to acquiesce to the lower standards held in others.
This is a return to States' Rights, and the possible end of 'one size fits all' Federal concentration of power. It also forces the groups which now coalesce nationally to lobby every Statehouse and Governor's office to get their way instead of just muck up DC, which means their 'causes' will have to spend a bunch more to show up at that many places, and may be show up as smaller crowds.
Contraceptives, imho, are the single most seminal reason that abortion can be readily restricted (aside from it being murder), because the situation that many say calls for abortion can be avoided by the judicious use of Contraceptives. I do not see anything that prevents becoming pregnant being banned, simply because it removes much of the case for abortion.
@Smokin Joe
I couldn't agree more. I don't want a tyranny from either the left OR the right. What I want is obedience to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.
-
@Smokin Joe
I couldn't agree more. I don't want a tyranny from either the left OR the right. What I want is obedience to the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.
:beer:
-
Personally, I believe that contraception and marriage are absolutely no business of ANY government. Those are personal choices, and government should butt out. Abortion is and always was a different matter because it involves existing human life, the protection of which is a legitimate concern of our local and state governments, but not the Federal government, as the Constitution makes clear by its design.
My personal view is the government has no business being involved in marriage at all, heterosexuals' or homosexual. My father was Sicilian, my mother of Slavic descent. up until 1963 there were about 10 states that did not recognize my parents marriage because he was considered a person of color. If you can find an officiant (secular or religious) to witness it you are good as gold.
-
My personal view is the government has no business being involved in marriage at all, heterosexuals' or homosexual. My father was Sicilian, my mother of Slavic descent. up until 1963 there were about 10 states that did not recognize my parents marriage because he was considered a person of color. If you can find an officiant (secular or religious) to witness it you are good as gold.
@verga
Just out of curiosity,what color was your father supposed to be?
-
My personal view is the government has no business being involved in marriage at all, heterosexuals' or homosexual. My father was Sicilian, my mother of Slavic descent. up until 1963 there were about 10 states that did not recognize my parents marriage because he was considered a person of color. If you can find an officiant (secular or religious) to witness it you are good as gold.
I would draw a different conclusion to that @verga
Common law marriage is certainly a thing - and a thing that produces an environment for children.
Now, most of the time, that s what it is -- But there are occasions that require laws to be imposed upon that environment... To include dissolution. To include child welfare. To include recognition of marriage for the purposes of household and deaths.
There are many reasons that the government should be able to be involved in what is said to be the least governable unit -- The smallest form of government.
That being said, that should never require the Federal government (except perhaps in military applications)... And while the technical purpose is certainly there, it should be exercised only in cases of extreme need.
-
@verga
Just out of curiosity,what color was your father supposed to be?
Being Sicilian he was exceptionally dark skinned. Three days in the sun and he could almost pass for Negro, he he had straight black hair and Caucasian facial features. When I was living in Maryland (25 yeas ago) I was told that he 'was not white". A couple of years ago I was told that anyone from the Mediterranean area are not "white". This was from several liberals trying to convince me not to be Conservative.
-
I would draw a different conclusion to that @verga
Common law marriage is certainly a thing - and a thing that produces an environment for children.
Now, most of the time, that s what it is -- But there are occasions that require laws to be imposed upon that environment... To include dissolution. To include child welfare. To include recognition of marriage for the purposes of household and deaths.
There are many reasons that the government should be able to be involved in what is said to be the least governable unit -- The smallest form of government.
That being said, that should never require the Federal government (except perhaps in military applications)... And while the technical purpose is certainly there, it should be exercised only in cases of extreme need.
@roamer_1 With all due respect. If they can license it they can try to control it. We have seen that with the 2nd amendment, oil leases, etc. IN NYS you need to APPLY for a marriage license, any thing you need to apply for can be denied. If they want to come up with some sort form that says a marriage has taken place already, fine, but nothing that you need to "Apply" for.
-
@roamer_1 With all due respect. If they can license it they can try to control it. We have seen that with the 2nd amendment, oil leases, etc. IN NYS you need to APPLY for a marriage license, any thing you need to apply for can be denied. If they want to come up with some sort form that says a marriage has taken place already, fine, but nothing that you need to "Apply" for.
@verga
Likewise, the opposite extreme: I don't know exactly... But MT recognizes a common law marriage after 6 months or so - With no license at all... With all the legal ramifications that would apply.
Live with a woman for 6 months or so, and for all intensive porpoises, you're married.
Still, I don't see how you keep government out of it.
-
Being Sicilian he was exceptionally dark skinned. Three days in the sun and he could almost pass for Negro, he he had straight black hair and Caucasian facial features. When I was living in Maryland (25 yeas ago) I was told that he 'was not white". A couple of years ago I was told that anyone from the Mediterranean area are not "white". This was from several liberals trying to convince me not to be Conservative.
@verga
I will grant you that Italians/Sicilians were VERY "rare on the ground" in the south when I grew up,but I never once heard anybody comparing them to Blacks.
Come to think of it,I knew more Jews than Italians when I was growing up. Did have friends named DeFabio,though. IIRC,the father was literally a rocket scientist.
-
@verga
I will grant you that Italians/Sicilians were VERY "rare on the ground" in the south when I grew up,but I never once heard anybody comparing them to Blacks.
Come to think of it,I knew more Jews than Italians when I was growing up. Did have friends named DeFabio,though. IIRC,the father was literally a rocket scientist.
@sneakypete
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZUJKXs6W-4