1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople
From Thomas’ concurring opinion: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. … 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.”
Justice Thomas complete opinion can be read here, at about page 117: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
@earl-of-trumps saidI wouldn't put it past the hypocrite.
@jimm619
Jeepers. The next thing ya know, Judge Thomas make interracial marriage illegal! The bastid!
1 edit
@jimm619 saidThomas should never have been confirmed.
REPEAL
https://www.rawstory.com/clarence-thomas-marriage/
He was confirmed for two reasons.
1. Bush badly needed to be seen as "not racist". "Hey, I put another black on the Court! Yay me!"
2. Most saw his obvious bias against women, as noted in Anita Hill's testimony, as no problem at all.
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidIf he botched it, he would have miss egged the nation. 😉
@jimm619
Jeepers. The next thing ya know, Judge Thomas make interracial marriage illegal! The bastid!
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@earl-of-trumps saidIt was ILLEGAL until 1963
@jimm619
Jeepers. The next thing ya know, Judge Thomas make interracial marriage illegal! The bastid!
LOVING vs VIRGINIA
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
3 edits
@suzianne saidNo, Clarence Thomas is a mediocre, conservative jurist simply
Thomas should never have been confirmed.
He was confirmed for two reasons.
1. Bush badly needed to be seen as "not racist". "Hey, I put another black on the Court! Yay me!"
2. Most saw his obvious bias against women, as noted in Anita Hill's testimony, as no problem at all.
nominated to replace the first, and only, Black judge Thurgood Marshall/
Ronald Reagan had previously appointed the first woman, Sandra Day-O'Connor.
The vote to confirm Thomas was very close.....51-49(?)
@vistesd2 saidThomas is suggesting that “due process” rulings are unconstitutional, that was how these cases were decided. Not suggesting they be undone, just done properly.
@Mott-The-Hoople
From Thomas’ concurring opinion: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due proc ...[text shortened]... on can be read here, at about page 117: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@mott-the-hoople saidWell, you gotta' undo them in order to re-do them.
Thomas is suggesting that “due process” rulings are unconstitutional, that was how these cases were decided. Not suggesting they be undone, just done properly.
@jimm619 saidAnd in this conservative atmosphere, how do you think they'll go down this time?
Well, you gotta' undo them in order to re-do them.
Look, all of the last 5 or 6 justices all said during their confirmation hearings that they do not recommend tampering with existing law.
See what damage making lying 'cool' is doing to America?
Again, Donald, thanks for nothing.
@jimm619 saidno you dont have to “undo” anything…dem politicians see they can get you libs all tore up by claiming that…it works, but you dont have a foot to stand on.
Well, you gotta' undo them in order to re-do them.
This is what happens when libs dont do things correctly. Scotus members simply rule based on constitutional law, the constitution doesnt address abortion, same sex marriage or queerness in any form. The constitution does explicitly give the STATES the power to do this.