Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off Roe v. Wade sp

[Bigun]

Clarence Thomas calls for abandoning 'demonstrably erroneous' precedent, touching off Roe v. Wade speculation

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-calls-for-abandoning-demonstrably-erroneous-precedent-touching-off-intense-roe-v-wade-speculation?fbclid=IwAR2LW04LMFb2YHMkmF5kFcpJlQ9m8ecFmQQ_CtpQTDHqTI6ENydhCzkETro

Be still my beating heart!

[Cyber Liberty]

It appears SCOTUS Justice Thomas disagrees with some lawyers about the supreme importance of "Super-duper Precedents" (to quote the great Scottish legal scholar Arlen Spector). 

[Bigun]

It appears SCOTUS Justice Thomas disagrees with some lawyers about the supreme importance of "Super-duper Precedents" (to quote the great Scottish legal scholar Arlen Spector). 

I think Justice Thomas is an adherent to: "I swore an oath to defend the Constitution for the United States of America, not the opinions of others."

[Hoodat]

Can't wait to hear from the usual suspects as they argue how the precedent of segregation should not have been overturned by Brown despite what the Constitution says, just as they do with Roe.

[Bill Cipher]

Stupidity springs eternal. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I think Justice Thomas is an adherent to: "I swore an oath to defend the Constitution for the United States of America, not the opinions of others."

I was called "naive" by one of the aforementioned lawyers for saying that.

Stupidity springs eternal. 

See?

[Cyber Liberty]

Stupidity springs eternal.

Nothing new.  I've heard far leftists call Clarence Thomas "stupid" many times.

[Bill Cipher]

I was called "naive" by one of the aforementioned lawyers for saying that.

See?

If Justice Thomas wishes to uphold the Constitution, then he will uphold the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which is premised on the fundamental right to individual freedom. 

If he prefers theocracy to a republic governed by the rule of law, he’ll seek to overturn it. 

[Hoodat]

the fundamental right to individual freedom.

That freedom begins with the right of the individual to form and shape his/her society though the representation of his/her State legislature.  Individuals come together to decide whether things like murder, theft, prostitution, etc. are to be allowed as a reflection of their society or whether instead they should be outlawed.

[Hoodat]

If he prefers theocracy to a republic governed by the rule of law, he’ll seek to overturn it.

Speaking of the Rule of Law, here is what Amendment X of the Constitution says:

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.

The Rule of Law states that it is up to the people of each State to decide on their own abortion laws, which you clearly oppose.  As for "theocracy", there is nothing theocratic about allowing the people of California to choose their own abortion laws.  But there is definitely something 'theocratic' about those who use the courts to force secular humanism on the rest of us.

[berdie]

If Justice Thomas wishes to uphold the Constitution, then he will uphold the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which is premised on the fundamental right to individual freedom. 

If he prefers theocracy to a republic governed by the rule of law, he’ll seek to overturn it.

That really makes no sense. But o.k. it's what you believe, I guess.

"fundamental right to individual freedom" So if someone breaks into your house and kills you...That is their fundamental right?

[Cyber Liberty]

If Justice Thomas wishes to uphold the Constitution, then he will uphold the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which is premised on the fundamental right to individual freedom. 

If he prefers theocracy to a republic governed by the rule of law, he’ll seek to overturn it.

Nice false dichotomy you got there.  It's be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

[Bigun]

I was called "naive" by one of the aforementioned lawyers for saying that.

See?

Yeah!   

[HoustonSam]

If Justice Thomas wishes to uphold the Constitution, then he will uphold the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which is premised on the fundamental right to individual freedom. 

If he prefers theocracy to a republic governed by the rule of law, he’ll seek to overturn it.

Many of the arguments of the Abolitionists were based on the 3rd chapter of Galatians.

Did the 13th Amendment establish a theocracy?

[Hoodat]

Many of the arguments of the Abolitionists were based on the 3rd chapter of Galatians.

Did the 13th Amendment establish a theocracy?

If he refuses to accept the 10th Amendment, you can't really expect him to accept the 13th.

[HoustonSam]

If he refuses to accept the 10th Amendment, you can't really expect him to accept the 13th.

I'm not asking whether anyone accepts or rejects any particular amendment.  I'm asking whether an American citizen can advocate a policy outcome which is consistent with religious faith, or do any such outcomes necessarily mean we are living in a theocracy?

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not asking whether anyone accepts or rejects any particular amendment.  I'm asking whether an American citizen can advocate a policy outcome which is consistent with religious faith, or do any such outcomes necessarily mean we are living in a theocracy?

That depends on who you ask (cough, cough).

[Smokin Joe]

If Justice Thomas wishes to uphold the Constitution, then he will uphold the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which is premised on the fundamental right to individual freedom. 

If he prefers theocracy to a republic governed by the rule of law, he’ll seek to overturn it.

He cannot. That would require him to ignore the fundamental Right to Life of the as yet unborn.
The science is simple enough, a living being with a unique genetic fingerprint has been created. To destroy that being is to kill a human, to take a life.
In the instances of some current State Laws, the alleged 'right' to take that life continues until after birth.

Like your right to freely swing your hand in the air, the right stops when you touch my face.
That individual freedom stops when it takes another life.

[jafo2010]

Agree Smokin Joe.

Killing, destroying the life of the most vulnerable human beings for women's individual rights is murder.  Rationalizing that the child could not survive on its own thus is not a human being is nonsense.  I would say that a child under three years of age would have difficulty surviving too.  Of course, the Dems want to start killing them too.

Until we recognize that abortion is murder, in fact genocide, we are no different than the USSR/Russia.  Worse actually considering we have a dozen or more means to prevent pregnancy, where they simply cannot afford birth control.  Russia has some beautiful churches, but it is largely a godless country.  We are hell bent to follow down that path as we become more and more godless in our mindset.

I vehemently oppose major decisions being decided by nine people who were NEVER elected to anything.  They are lying stinking attorneys who have gotten a degree in professional lying. At a minimum, have a referendum for the electorate to decide such major decisions in this nation.  I am 100% certain that the majority of Americans would vote to oppose abortion, with perhaps the sole exception being in the event the mother's life being in jeopardy, and perhaps in the event of rape and incest.  Otherwise, I am certain 60%+ of America would say no.  Why leave it to nine unelected lying attorneys?  I just do not understand this.

[goatprairie]

Many of the proponents of abortion call  human life shortly after conception "just a clump of cells."
Therefore, we can terminate that "clump of cells" any time we choose.
But looking at it that way, we're all just a "clump of cells" in various stages of development.
They also use the erroneous assumption that if it can't live outside the womb, it's not a human life.
Someone tell me how long a newborn infant can survive outside the womb without human help. One day...two days...a week?  No young human less than two years old could probably survive without human support.
The fact is at the moment of conception that "clump of cells" is a human life. Even a pro-abortion person like Camille Paglia recognizes that abortion is barbaric, but she deems it necessary for the mental health of a woman.  Few pro-abortionists will even call it what it is...a human life at the earliest stage of development.

[GrouchoTex]

He cannot. That would require him to ignore the fundamental Right to Life of the as yet unborn.
The science is simple enough, a living being with a unique genetic fingerprint has been created. To destroy that being is to kill a human, to take a life.
In the instances of some current State Laws, the alleged 'right' to take that life continues until after birth.

Like your right to freely swing your hand in the air, the right stops when you touch my face.
That individual freedom stops when it takes another life.

Basically, Roe V Wade was based on a woman's individual right to privacy, and the protections thereof.
The only way the give her this unique right (somewhat speciously based on the 14 amendment) was to abolish and deny the rights of the child said woman was carrying.

[Sanguine]

Basically, Roe V Wade was based on a woman's individual right to privacy, and the protections thereof.
The only way the give her this unique right (somewhat speciously based on the 14 amendment) was to abolish and deny the rights of the child said woman was carrying.

That's it in two sentences.

[Hoodat]

Basically, Roe V Wade was based on a woman's individual right to privacy, and the protections thereof.
The only way the give her this unique right (somewhat speciously based on the 14 amendment) was to abolish and deny the rights of the child said woman was carrying.

It also required denying the right of the people under the Tenth Amendment to establish their own State laws in this regard.

[GrouchoTex]

It also required denying the right of the people under the Tenth Amendment to establish their own State laws in this regard.

Indeed, this is correct.

[Fishrrman]

Fearless prediction:
The Supreme Court, as currently constituted, is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

If a case offering the potential to do so comes before it, Roberts and possibly Kavanaugh will vote with the leftists.

That's how I see it.