Is a reversal of Roe v Wade decision next?
- Thread starter CunningCanuk
- Start date
Funny thing is is going back to the states? Blue is still Roe and Red is going to turn to shit with child/teen pregnancies and marriages.
Sinner by parting ones legs before the benefit of marriage!..now suffer your sin!
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
Blue Wizard
Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i feel like the supreme court is packed full of cocksucking trump loving pieces of human filth who perjured themselves to get there, so they could force their will on America, like kavanaugh forcing his tiny little cock between some poor frat girls lips...how you feeling? you're one step closer to getting to stone to death anyone who's lifestyle makes you uncomfortable, must be a great day for you
printer
Well-Known Member
Think about that. Temper Trump? He would pass laws where no Democrat would ever win again.
printer
Well-Known Member
While they are on a roll...
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.
Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.
thehill.com
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.
Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with t…
thehill.com
V256.420
Well-Known Member
My previous post about this was dead on then.While they are on a roll...
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.
Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.
The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
While Thomas’s comments outline the worst-case scenario for the majority’s liberal critics, it’s unclear whether the other conservative justices are willing to go as far as the court’s most senior member.
Alito stressed in the majority opinion that his reasoning applies only to abortion and rejected any assertions that the rationale in Dobbs could extend to Griswold, Lawrence or Obergefell.
“Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Alito wrote.
The three members of the court’s liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — rejected that assurance in their dissent, saying the majority’s willingness to overturn the landmark decades-old decision leaves other precedents vulnerable.
“And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” the three liberals wrote. “The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”
“The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with t…
printer
Well-Known Member
Next big fight looms over abortion pills
Abortion pills are likely to become the next major front of the fight over reproductive health care in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Republican-led states have been moving to limit or even completely ban access to the drugs, and advocates worry the Supreme Court’s decision will embolden even more states to crack down.
Immediately following the ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department will protect the right to an abortion, including medication abortion.
“We stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care,” Garland said in a statement.
thehill.com
Abortion pills are likely to become the next major front of the fight over reproductive health care in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Republican-led states have been moving to limit or even completely ban access to the drugs, and advocates worry the Supreme Court’s decision will embolden even more states to crack down.
Immediately following the ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department will protect the right to an abortion, including medication abortion.
“We stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care,” Garland said in a statement.
Next big fight looms over abortion pills
Abortion pills are likely to become the next major front of the fight over reproductive health care in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Republican-led states …
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I don't think the court decision will be in the news much, if other issues displace it, which is one reason for the pause in the hearings. It won't have legs because it is not really controversial, everybody has firm opinions on the subject and there is not much to debate about the courts decision that isn't being covered today. Will it have a political impact? Yep, a bigger impact than the j6 hearings and guns combined. The democrats want it as an election issue in November and millions of women should organize around it with grass roots organizations, that will knock on doors, keep voter lists, make phone calls and get financing from wealthy and well off women, who will pour in hundreds of millions.
Can it overcome the bigotry and stupidity of those who will vote for republicans, any republicans, that remains to be seen. But lose the election in November because they is taken over and you will have to live with it and more for another 2 years and then forever, cause if these fucks win the election in November, you won't have any more real elections, they will be like Russian elections. A woman's rights are not the only rights on the line in November, your right to vote is on the line as well as the US constitution and many civil warriors will vote for republicans no matter how many laws they break or even if they commit treason.
Can it overcome the bigotry and stupidity of those who will vote for republicans, any republicans, that remains to be seen. But lose the election in November because they is taken over and you will have to live with it and more for another 2 years and then forever, cause if these fucks win the election in November, you won't have any more real elections, they will be like Russian elections. A woman's rights are not the only rights on the line in November, your right to vote is on the line as well as the US constitution and many civil warriors will vote for republicans no matter how many laws they break or even if they commit treason.
printer
Well-Known Member
It was just obvious, it is not in The Constitution, so it is not protected. Lets go back to muskets and black powder.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Interracial marriage too, Clarence is not above fucking himself!While they are on a roll...
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.
Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.
The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
While Thomas’s comments outline the worst-case scenario for the majority’s liberal critics, it’s unclear whether the other conservative justices are willing to go as far as the court’s most senior member.
Alito stressed in the majority opinion that his reasoning applies only to abortion and rejected any assertions that the rationale in Dobbs could extend to Griswold, Lawrence or Obergefell.
“Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Alito wrote.
The three members of the court’s liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — rejected that assurance in their dissent, saying the majority’s willingness to overturn the landmark decades-old decision leaves other precedents vulnerable.
“And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” the three liberals wrote. “The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”
“The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with t…
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
where are the fucking gun toting murdering nutjobs when you need them? oh yeah, killing school kids because republicans block any attempt at sane gun lawsWhile they are on a roll...
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority to decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion. But he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases.
Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has affirmed.
The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
While Thomas’s comments outline the worst-case scenario for the majority’s liberal critics, it’s unclear whether the other conservative justices are willing to go as far as the court’s most senior member.
Alito stressed in the majority opinion that his reasoning applies only to abortion and rejected any assertions that the rationale in Dobbs could extend to Griswold, Lawrence or Obergefell.
“Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Alito wrote.
The three members of the court’s liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — rejected that assurance in their dissent, saying the majority’s willingness to overturn the landmark decades-old decision leaves other precedents vulnerable.
“And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” the three liberals wrote. “The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.”
“The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”
Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with t…
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
So I guess the US military particularly the air force will be moving out of red states, they won't close the bases, just nobody will be stationed there and most of the civilians (republicans) will be laid off. The military has many young women and many are highly trained people who they need to retain, they won't leave them in those states where their rights and health are threatened, they will quietly relocate operations to blue states. When those republican he men get their pink slips from the base and lose their jobs and contracts, they will soon figure out that they fucked themselves.
The army and air force will relocate, the Navy is on the coast, but Pensacola Florida will be on their radar. Nasa will move or lose people too, as will many corporations. Don't think it will happen? It already has and they were preparing.
The army and air force will relocate, the Navy is on the coast, but Pensacola Florida will be on their radar. Nasa will move or lose people too, as will many corporations. Don't think it will happen? It already has and they were preparing.
Yup, Loving v. Virginia..let's just forget it.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Wait till the military quietly moves out of their states, but leaves empty bases and laid off republicans behind. They need to retain highly trained female sergeants and technicians and will move operations, most of their female service people are of child bearing age. Joe won't need to order it, they will just quietly do it, while leaving the empty base open with a skeleton crew of civilians to mow the lawns.