The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It sounds to me as if Thomas is wanting to overrule the "precedents" rather than overrule the actual rulings. As it stands, the court has no ability to actually rule on anything that isn't brought before them. So unless some state wants to enact a law that makes contraceptive illegal or that bans sex between partners they will not be ruling on them.
It would appear, however, that Thomas would like to opportunity to put more emphasis on the fact that the "precedents" used in these cases should be deemed to no longer be valid precedents. Not so much that private sex acts are in jeopardy, but that the reasoning used to get to those decisions should be in jeopardy. The correction of the "error" seene be implied to be in future cases (as stated in Thomas's own wording) and in creating "different" precedents, rather than in actually revisiting the old decisions (which they have no authority to do anyways).
Again... this is my layman's take on this. Even if I am wrong, there is no stomach for anyone to revisit any of these laws at this point, and I doubt that this court or any court is going to allow states to outlaw contraception or private sex acts. But I will be curious as to how others with a better understanding of these opinions read this.
45 comments:
in a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the line of cases related to Roe—which under the constitutional guarantees of due process and liberty recognized rights to birth control pills, struck down sodomy laws and, in 2015, provided for same-sex marriage—should be overruled as well.
The bottom line is if these issues emerge later on.
Thomas took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry.
Justice Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.
This kind of language is just what advocates for reproductive rights and for L.G.B.T.Q. rights have been fearing. Defenders of the right to abortion have repeatedly warned that if Roe fell, the right to contraception and same-sex marriage would be next.
Abortion opponents, who fought hard to overturn Roe, have insisted they have no interest in trying to undo the right to contraception.
Some states already have banned same day pills.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/clarence-thomas-roe-griswold-lawrence-obergefell.html?smid=url-share
Scott some states already banned contraception pills.
It sounds to me as if Thomas is wanting to overrule the "precedents" rather than overrule the actual rulings. As it stands, the court has no ability to actually rule on anything that isn't brought before them. So unless some state wants to enact a law that makes contraceptive illegal or that bans sex between partners they will not be ruling on them.
I agree. He states it clearly:
Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.
I interpret this as Thomas trying to ensure he's being fair. The usual drama queen imbeciles will interpret it in the most egregious way possible.
“The Court’s abortion cases are unique,” Thomas wrote, and “nothing in the Court’s opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
But, he signaled that he was potentially willing to chop away nonetheless: “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [contraception], Lawrence [sexual acts], and Obergefell [same-sex marriage].”
“Because any substantive due process decision is demonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas continued.
But those rights might — perhaps — be found elsewhere, he suggested. Or maybe not:
After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights. That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach.
In a footnote, Thomas lambasted the “facial absurdity” of the Griswold holding.
---
In other words,if a case comes to the Supreme Court he would outlaw same sex marriage and birth control pills
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-thomas-compares-number-of-abortions-to-civil-war-deaths-in-concurrence-identifying-other-landmark-cases-to-overturn-after-roe/
FJB's imbecile lesbian publicist just said that the White House will "ask the Congress to restore Roe."
LOL.
Sometime today I'm hoping that someone will inform the FJB White House that the USSC has simply returned the issue to the states.
We have NY'ers hyperventilating over this ruling while exactly zero NY'ers will be affected by the ruling.
What a stupid time to be alive.
Then there’s Chief Justice John Roberts. He didn’t join his colleagues in the opinion, and instead concurred in the judgment. He argued the right to abortion, and whether to overturn Roe, should have been left for another time: “there is a clear path to deciding this case correctly without overruling Roe all the way down to the studs: recognize that the viability line must be discarded, as the majority rightly does, and leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all.”
In other words, Justice Roberts would prefer the Court put off correcting its errors in judgment for another day. The present is inconvenient for him - perhaps he’s more concerned with is legacy and the reputation of the Court than in getting the law right. The majority opinion recognized Roberts’ maneuvering, stating “the concurrence’s most fundamental defect is its failure to offer any principled basis for its approach.”
https://technofog.substack.com/p/roe-v-wade-is-dead?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
That's Roberts: A complete failure to offer any principled basis for its approach. Or ANY approach on ANY issue.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first significant gun-safety bill in decades garnered enough votes for passage in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, weeks after mass shootings in Texas and New York that killed more than 30 people, including 19 children.
Voting continued in the Democratic-controlled chamber, a day after the Senate passed the same legislation. Once formally approved by the House, the measure would go to the White House for President Joe Biden to sign into law.
Trump agreed with me about Roe v Wade in November
Former President Donald Trump lauded the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade to Fox News, saying: “I think, in the end, this is something that will work out for everybody.”
But the New York Times reports Trump has repeatedly and privately told people that he believes the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade will be “bad for Republicans.”
“The decision, Mr. Trump has told friends and advisers, will anger suburban women, a group who helped tilt the 2020 presidential race to Joe Biden, and will lead to a backlash against Republicans in the November midterm elections.”
But, he signaled that he was potentially willing to chop away nonetheless: “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [contraception], Lawrence [sexual acts], and Obergefell [same-sex marriage].”
Roger...
You do realize that the courts have no ability or "right" to go back and "revisit" any old decisions. They only see the cases that are brought before them.
So again Roger..
Unless there is a "new law" in some state that outlaws contraceptives and makes it way to the Courts... there is nothing they can do about that.
Thomas specifically refers to "future rulings" not previous rulings. I get the confusion, but does ANYONE really believe that the United States Supreme Court can just decide one day to redecide an old case?
The abortion laws were going to keep coming... and eventually Roe was going to give... no way around that. It was a bad precedent.
Thomas "is" suggesting that the same sort of "privacy" issues do not exist under any similar precedent and shouldn't. So moving forward, Roe cannot be used as a precedent, but neither "should" other rulings that were in part based on that same concept.
And so does the President Biden
President Biden said Friday that "Roe is on the ballot" this November, hours after the Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, effectively ending all federal protections on abortion.
Driving the news: "This fall, Roe is on the ballot. Personal freedoms are on the ballot, the right to privacy, liberty, equality, they're all on the ballot," he said, also urging voters to "make their voices heard."
As usual you don't understand what he implied about future decisions.
More to the point...
Kavanaugh stated in his opinion:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
The difference is that Thomas basically says that those precedents should not be considered and that to some degree everything would be fair game.
The only possible situation would be if some state put forward a new law banning same sex marriage... which is unlikely and it would be unlikely that the court would be willing to hear it (since that is a very recent ruling).
Even if Thomas wanted to hear it, there is no chance that there are five votes to do so. Not with three liberals, Roberts already on that decision and Kavanaugh on record as saying that precedent is safe.
It would depend upon a specific case.
You might be correct about this 🤔
But
Dobbs Decision Reduces Freedom, Will Widen Inequities
Statement of Sharon Parrott, President
By overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court has taken away the guaranteed right of people to make the most basic decisions about their bodies, their pregnancies, their families, and their futures.
As a result of this ruling, many people will lose access to abortion or face new difficulties in obtaining this vital service as states use the Court’s new permission slip to abrogate the freedom to control one’s own body. The Court’s actions today signal that other fundamental rights could be at risk as well.
“No one should have to cross state lines to exercise their most basic rights and plan their futures.”
No one should have to cross state lines to exercise their most basic rights and plan their futures. And the burden will fall hardest on the people with the fewest resources, disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and others who have historically been marginalized. They will face the highest hurdles to overcoming state-level restrictions due to this nation’s long history of racism and discrimination. For many with low incomes, little savings, inflexible jobs, child care responsibilities, or no private transportation, those restrictions will mean less personal autonomy and enormous financial hardship — burdens that wealthier people will not face to the same degree.
By creating new legal and financial barriers to health care based on where people live and their resources to seek care elsewhere, the Court’s decision will further worsen health disparities. The U.S. already has unacceptably high levels of poverty and inequality and deep inequities across racial, ethnic, and gender lines. Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of deadly pregnancy-related complications during or within 12 months of the end of pregnancy. Black women die at significantly higher rates than other groups and are twice as likely to experience serious health conditions resulting from labor or delivery. And births involving unintended pregnancies are more likely to result in adverse health outcomes for women, including death; this risk is higher for women of color than for white women.
A liberal website
https://www.cbpp.org/press/statements/dobbs-decision-reduces-freedom-will-widen-inequities
By overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court has taken away the guaranteed right of people to make the most basic decisions about their bodies, their pregnancies, their families, and their futures.
As a result of this ruling, many people will lose access to abortion or face new difficulties in obtaining this vital service as states use the Court’s new permission slip to abrogate the freedom to control one’s own body. The Court’s actions today signal that other fundamental rights could be at risk as well.
“No one should have to cross state lines to exercise their most basic rights and plan their futures.”
No one should have to cross state lines to exercise their most basic rights and plan their futures. And the burden will fall hardest on the people with the fewest resources, disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and others who have historically been marginalized. They will face the highest hurdles to overcoming state-level restrictions due to this nation’s long history of racism and discrimination. For many with low incomes, little savings, inflexible jobs, child care responsibilities, or no private transportation, those restrictions will mean less personal autonomy and enormous financial hardship — burdens that wealthier people will not face to the same degree.
By creating new legal and financial barriers to health care based on where people live and their resources to seek care elsewhere, the Court’s decision will further worsen health disparities. The U.S. already has unacceptably high levels of poverty and inequality and deep inequities across racial, ethnic, and gender lines. Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of deadly pregnancy-related complications during or within 12 months of the end of pregnancy. Black women die at significantly higher rates than other groups and are twice as likely to experience serious health conditions resulting from labor or delivery. And births involving unintended pregnancies are more likely to result in adverse health outcomes for women, including death; this risk is higher for women of color than for white women.
Instead of worsening disparities, we should pursue health equity so that all people can access care and lead healthy lives regardless of their race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, the state in which they live, their income, their immigration status, their disability status, or the language they speak. Elected officials at both the state and national level should take action to protect people’s freedom to access vital health care, including abortion care, and make personal decisions to guide their own lives.
Liberal views
Bidenomics Socialism.
"The University of Michigan said its final consumer sentiment index reading for the month fell to 50.0 from 55.2 in May on the persistence of high inflation and rising fears of an economic slowdown. That compared with a preliminary reading of 50.2 earlier in June."
Pure Marxist babble
What did the Ass clown 🤡 say:
"Coldheartedtruth TellerJune 24, 2022 at 1:47 PM
Dobbs Decision Reduces Freedom, Will Widen Inequities"
Explain how the USSC caused " inequities "?
Funny thing...
No matter what news station was on here.... every reporter and anchor was treating this like the fucking end of the world. But yet, we are still in a situation where we have probably a 60-40 split on Roe and we have a pretty healthy majority who have no problems with restrictions that were not allowed under Roe...
But the biggest issue here...
Liberals do not like the idea of a Republic (where states make their own laws) or the idea of the constitution (which prevents certain laws) and the simple concept that some States are going to vote to elect people who will support more abortion restrictions.
Democracy is such a great thing... until someone doesn't like what the people choose.
Rare and safe.
"About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously. "
Guttmacher Institute
Liberals do not like the idea of a Republic (where states make their own laws) or the idea of the constitution (which prevents certain laws) and the simple concept that some States are going to vote to elect people who will support more abortion restrictions.
It's about freedom. Leftists despise freedom. Allowing people to collect at the state/local level, to decide what they want, to reject what they don't. That drives the left fucking mad.
Leftist ideas are ideas so good they must be made mandatory.
On abortion, if the left had their wish, abortion would work like the first Terminator movie where Arnold was stomping through the police station slaughtering cops. They would stomp through the nurseries in every hospital in America slaughtering newborns. They really are THAT fucked up.
When decisions go against Republicans, the message is tough shit, accept it.
When it goes against democrats, it's rage, violence, destruction and chaos.
Grow the fuck up. It leaves it up to the states. Nothing is different here in NY. Except we can now carry to the abortion clinic.
The conservative justice Clarence Thomas appeared to offer a preview of the court’s potential future rulings, suggesting the rightwing-controlled court may return to the issues of contraception access and marriage equality, threatening LGBTQ rights.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion to the ruling on Roe.
Vice President Harris delivered a speech in Plainfield, Ill., and addressed the ruling. “It’s the right to privacy,” she said. “It’s the right for each person to make intimate decisions about heart and home. Decisions about the right to start families,” she said, noting it could impact access to contraception.21m ago
She emphasized privacy and control of her own body.
And a libertarian view about government control over their own bodies.
Explain how the USSC caused " inequities "?
Of course Roger can't , no more then A Parrot understands the words they repeat.
Copper Index = We are in the Biden Recession
Tell us Roger.
How does killing a baby = "the right to start families"?
Be better then a Parrot 🦜 Roger.
Poor woman who have to travel to get an abortion is an financial inequity
The dissent was quite explicit here:
Power, not reason, is the new currency of this Court’s decisionmaking. Roe has stood for fifty years. Casey, a precedent about precedent specifically confirming Roe, has stood for thirty. And the doctrine of stare decisis — a critical element of the rule of law — stands foursquare behind their continued existence. The right those decisions established and preserved is embedded in our constitutional law, both originating in and leading to other rights protecting bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and family relationships. The abortion right is also embedded in the lives of women — shaping their expectations, influencing their choices about relationships and work, supporting (as all reproductive rights do) their social and economic equality. Since the right’s recognition (and affirmation), nothing has changed to support what the majority does today. Neither law nor facts nor attitudes have provided any new reasons to reach a different result than Roe and Casey did. All that has changed is this Court.
Poor woman who have to travel to get an abortion is an financial inequity
Yes... this will be an argument. That rich people can go from state to state to garner an abortion, but poor people cannot. Perhaps there will be a shift in population for people who want access to abortions will move to states that allow it?
At some point, this will spur Congress to come up with a National law that addresses things. They will never "codify Roe" - but perhaps something in the 15 week range with the medical and rape exceptions?
Nonsense from a fucktard.
"Poor woman who have to travel to get an abortion is an financial inequity"
She had zero problem traveling on a dick to get pregnant.
Likelihood is it is her 2nd, 3rd or 4th abortion.
Roger Your team might finally get one thing right.
Moving the Requied Minimum Distribution from age 72 to 75.
Not that you have any assests that would fall under this god aweful law.
But i do.
Maybe :
CHT
"Perhaps there will be a shift in population for people who want access to abortions will move to states that allow it?"
States like California, Illinois and Michigan might see population increases as the whores that cant keep a dick out of them might migrate .
At some point, this will spur Congress to come up with a National law that addresses things. They will never "codify Roe" - but perhaps something in the 15 week range with the medical and rape exceptions?
Doubtful, for two reasons.
One, attitudes towards abortion has been shifting against for a while now. Two, leftists are inherently lazy. They would prefer to get what they want through the courts so they don't have to do the hard work of actually legislating. That's why they want to pack the court, eliminate the EC and add two states. That gives them a path to permanent power which, once acquired means they can sit back and relax.
Leftists can never 'sell' their ideas to the electorate. Those ideas must be made mandatory, and to hell with those who disagree.
I'm loving the meltdown today. I just hope that the justices have the protection required for a live fire exercise tonight.
Jane's Asshole and Ruth Fucked Us are coming, and there needs to be someone there to shoot them on sight.
States like California, Illinois and Michigan might see population increases as the whores that cant keep a dick out of them might migrate .
My governor is such an asshole she'll be offering taxpayer funded abortions to one and all, including free transportation to and from.
Go to the home of every Supreme Court justice who just voted to kill women. Let them know how you feel
— Cameron Kasky (@cameron_kasky) June 24, 2022
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/06/24/parkland-shooting-survivor-cameron-kasky-urges-followers-to-go-to-the-home-of-every-supreme-court-justice-who-just-voted-to-kill-women/
RRB
"My governor is such an asshole she'll be offering taxpayer funded abortions to one and all, including free transportation to and from."
Ending Alkys stupid baseless idea of poor woman are hurt financially by the ruling.
The Abortion Industry is going to thrive.
California funding "Abortion Vacation".
If this decision allows the Democrats to continue to control both sides of the congress they might do that.
They might not use Roe v Wade but they might write something in the 15 week range with the medical and rape exceptions.
Of the Democrats hold both sides we won't see impeachment charges on Sleepy Joe Biden.
Next from Roger...
If this decision allows democrats to cure cancer and if the Jan 6 committee let's democrats control the Whitehouse for the next 50 years, blah blah blah
Ris asinine hypotheticals are so old
Let's see a few crowds at Sotomayor s home, see what happens then
Due Process
Substantive due process cases theorize that the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment includes several rights that are not directly spelled out in the Constitution. The verbatim of the clause itself forbids “any state” from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Thomas, however, said the only rights truly secured by the due process clause were those legal scholars and jurists call “procedural due process” rights. Those rights, according to Thomas, include nothing but a guarantee of a mechanical and regimented governmental process — nothing more.
This paragraph lays out Thomas’s views on the matter (internal citations and some internal punctuation marks have been omitted):
I write separately to emphasize a second, more fundamental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking in the Due Process Clause. Considerable historical evidence indicates that “due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative enactments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. Other sources, by contrast, suggest that “due process of law” prohibited legislatures “from authorizing the deprivation of a person’s life, liberty, or property without providing him the customary procedures to which freemen were entitled by the old law of England.” Either way, the Due Process Clause at most guarantees process. It does not, as the Court’s substantive due process cases suppose, “forbid the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided.”
Thomas stood alone in his opinion; no other justice joined him.
Post a Comment