(06-25-2022 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (06-25-2022 02:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-25-2022 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (06-25-2022 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-25-2022 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: The domino effect
Funny when conservatives worry about the slippery slope, as in gun laws, the liberals pooh-pooh the very idea.
Another group of myna bird crayon eaters.
In order:
------------------------
interracial marriage --- firmly protected by the Equal Protection clause of the 14th, with no necessary support from 'right of privacy'. Inherent on the racial issue and the explicit language of that.
-----------------------
gay marriage --- Obergfell was decided with a an adjunct of a 'right of privacy' as a basis, but not *due* as a basis on the 'right of privacy.
In fact Obergfell was decided with a full independent basis on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. And, the Obergfell court noted that it could equally apply the Due Process clause of the 14th, but since there was already a sufficient basis, did not do so explicitly.
-------------------------
Contraception --- have to agree the cases that struck 'contraception' bans would be 'at risk' Constitutionally. But, be fing real -- who in their right mind as a state action will ban rubbers being sold in that state in 2022. Get a fing clue and get a solid grip in the real world.
-------------------------
Yep they scream 'domino effect', but they are simply screaming their membership in the crayon eaters club. I can understand it from the drool factor of the people being interviewed, but the spiel by legal correspondents in/for the media would simply be akin to malpractice.
Thomas' concurrence did say 'this ruling' might expand to those areas --- but 'this' ruling is solely concerned with the world of substantive due process and architected- bases for designed rights. He would be correct that the 'right of privacy' concerns for those issues might be a topic.
But anyone with a warm body realizes gay marriage and interracial marriage has far stronger ties into actual, explicit issues in the 14th Amendment, that are almost certainly unbreachable. As for kicking the base of 'right of privacy' from those -- it devolves to a 'who cares, there is plenty of readily more and readily more explicit bases for those decisions' aside from a 'right of privacy' schtick.
As for the one that doesn't, no state in their right mind will curtail contraception.
These folks arent fing rooted in the realities of the law nor in the realities of the states.
But holy hell it makes for vainglorious media coverage.
Fing crayon eaters. But probably necessary for a group to have bunch of zomboids to throw at a cause, I surmise.
I do not see any state trying to limit contraception such as condoms or birth control. But IUDs and the morning after pills are not out of the question, based on how they function and the focus that has already been placed on them by some pro-life law makers.
I would also not be surprised if some states try to get a court case to challenge gay marriage, especially with the writings from Thomas, which basically encourage that to happen.
Did you even read the Thomas concurrence, or are you simply telling us what others have told you? Sorry, if the latter, the media is shading this something fierce, not to mention many of the places I would suspect you might glean this from.
Thomas many times will write on niglets. Privileges and immunities of the 14th being a favorite.
There is a reason no other justice joined Thomas in his concurrence, which goes directly against your thesis mind you. Even so, Thomas’ comments are concerned with substantive due process action, let alone obergfell was decided on 14th Amendment Equal Protection grounds, with a heavy foundation that could be rolled into 14th Amendment Due Process.
The substantive due process prong was only discussed in an ancillary vein in Obergfell. That is, the substantive due process emanating from the right of privacy.
I think your concern on gay marriage really only exists in the context of the progressive hive mind.
My thesis was that Thomas near explicitly asks for people to challenge set precedent that he disagrees with - gay marriage being one.
Your thesis is just wrong. Bummer. Please do tell where Thomas 'near explicitly asks for [a] challenge set(sic) [to a] precedent that he disagrees with' in this one. Please, be explicit in the language.
Please do tell exactly what in 'gay marriage' or its precedent that he disagrees with? Please, be precise.
The issueis that in my estimation you are simply parroting **** here.
Quote:Given that we had a length argument where you, and other commentators, harped on the fact that the explicit bigotry that made its way back into the Texas Republican platform was really not a ratcheting up of rhetoric because it has always been there, im going to take your last comment with the biggest grain of salt known to man right now. There are clearly plenty of individuals who would like to roll back the rights of gay couples to marry, and I would be shocked if we don’t see challenges brought through the courts that try and get the Supreme Court to evaluate where it not Obergfell should be overturned so that the issue returns to the states.
Funny, last I heard 'ratcheting it up' expressly does not equate to 'always having been there in that amount'. Your flapping was explicitly about the 'ratcheting up', which, quite frankly, doesnt exist in that platform over the course of decades.
Not that I agree with the rhetoric in the platform.
But to say that it has been 'ratcheted up' is simply being ignorant about the role of social conservatives in the role of the republican Party, and more notably, their tradiitional role in being in charge of the 'platform bus' of that party.
I agree the language is problematic.
But furiously and anxiously saying that it is a MAJOR UPHEAVAL AND UPTICK is simply not accurate given that history. It sounds wonderful for chicken little talking heads and their talking points, but the main concern isnt the MAJOR TRAJECTORY CHANGES but the language itself.
And as to your last sentence, I suggest you read some Equal Protection cases, actually read Obergfell, and then read some substantive due process cases. Maybe, just maybe, read Thomas' opinions and concurrences (and dissents) on the broad area of substantive due process -- and then give us a book report on how and why a challenge that you are so anxious about can be viable.
I'll tell you right now -- Obergfell was *not* decided in the Lawrence or Bowers train, although they were mentioned in the opinion. Obergfell was decided as a straight, plain jane, Equal Protection case. Easy case to decide. State has a function, state denies function to a class of people, state cant make a rational reason as to that denial. No protected classes in the opinion, and the rationale stands with or without a 'right' being infringed under that rubric. To the extent that the Due Process clause stood as an equally viable rationale for the decision.
What Thomas *does* do in his concurrence, is question the idea that a court, any court, can make up rights out of thin air. And to the extent that a 'fundamental right' is found out of the ether, then the existence of that 'fundamental right' should be at least questioned. You might see that if you actually read Thomas' concurrence.
And, if you actually read Obergfell, you might actuall see that the concept of a 'fundamental right of marriage' does enter the calculus there, it does not do so to the extent to question, let alone nullify, the state discrimination that is the subject matter of that case.
Jump up and down and sideways as to what your talking heads tell you to say. Sometimes it isnt all quite there.
/
Rice Quad Supreme Court / Legal Decisions Thread
