Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 13 Next >>
Topic: The Supreme Court Decision: Roe v Wade Struck Down Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 2:58pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Okay, girls! Back to the kitchen! And let’s hear no more about this “equality” nonsense!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11805
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

As David rightly noted above, Justice Thomas makes explicit what is implicit in the majority opinion:

>>
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application inother, 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) (rightto 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 areunique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party hasasked 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 agreethat “[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 allof 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, Gamblev. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remainwhether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
<<


Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4481
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Justice Thomas concurs, saying overruling Roe isn't enough. "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." (Right to privacy, contraception, marriage equality,etc.)

THIS IS SO FUCKED UP.

Saw this coming but thought MAYBE logic and the will of the people would prevail. We're entering very dangerous times in this country.

-C!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1932
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:05pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Without a hint of hyperbole, as dark a day for the republic as it has ever seen.  The repercussions will be horrific.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with them ramming their religion down everyone's throat. 
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1117
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:05pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Under his eye, y'all.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:05pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

One point I have made many times over the years is the danger of surrendering this kind of power to the government. Letting them say you cannot have an abortion carries, implicitly, the right for them to say you must have an abortion.

(Fear runs deep. I notice my predictive spellcheck does not guess “abortion” even if I have typed all but the last letter.)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4481
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:13pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

The Supreme Court on Guns: "The states cannot decide!"

The Supreme Court on Abortion: "The states must decide!"

-C!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Imaginary X-Man

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 128701
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:15pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Thus we maintain our Right to kill each other—after we’re born.
Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 2835
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:19pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

 Conrad Teves wrote:
Without a hint of hyperbole, as dark a day for the republic as it has ever seen. The repercussions will be horrific.


My prelaw days were long ago, and for the life of me, I can't recall a case where the Supreme Court actually explicitly revoked an individual right.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 490
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:28pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Twitter seems to be blaming Susan Sarandon and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I'm not sure why, though?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1932
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:31pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

David,

Yeah.  I was just talking with someone about that very thing, and we can't think of one either.

Since this is a "states" thing according to the court, it took about five minutes for Mike Pence to suggest a national ban.  
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Vishwas Aragam
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 August 2007
Posts: 94
Posted: 24 June 2022 at 3:38pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply


 QUOTE:
Twitter seems to be blaming Susan Sarandon and Ruth Bader
Ginsberg. I'm not sure why, though?




People blame Sarandon for being anti Clinton, and Ginsberg for not retiring
during Obama’s presidency.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 13 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login