Roe is gone
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
I see. The right to gay marriage is so clear in the constitution that you don't even need to have the court weigh in on it. Heh, you have been around the block enough to know how that type of assumption works out. Obergefell v. Hodges turned out to be a 5-4 decision so it was apparently not as clear to the Court.
But I hear ya. For example, the Constitution is so clear that the people have the right to bear arms and own guns that there should be no need for the courts to even take up some of these cases.
i said i dont need the court to be on my side it already decided equal protection under the law 5-4 is no surprise given how long it takes the court to recognize basic rights. But now thomas wants to undue basic rights. this is outside of abortion with competing rights of fetus. here it is basic 2 adukt people wanting to get married
We wish you understood equal protection.
Thomas is not the only one who never found the alleged basic right to same sex marriage in Obergefell. Moderate John Roberts did not as well along with the real conservatives. And although the gay marriage issue did not as you say- present the competing issue of the rights of the fetus- that is not to say that there are not competing rights involved. Most notably the competing right of the people to decide issues that are not addressed in the Constitution- unless via trying to build some kind of house of cards and using smoke and mirrors to construct an argument.
You also dismissed my argument the other day making the point that the arguments in Obergefell could very easily be used to support a right to polygamy. To add another partner into the equation would be no greater affront or deviation to societal and legal tradition than would the argument that same sex marriage is supported even though it is totally outside western tradition. And, again, even moderate John Roberts in his dissent also said that. Liberals make the obligatory scripted argument that women's equality and rights of blacks- for example- are also new and different from historical societal traditions and settled law about but those two categories have direct amendments and language in the constitution now. Unlike gay marriage and Roe which are your basic "if my grandmother had a beard she would be my granfather arguments." Arguments that parties develop by just going through the constitution and pecking on every provision to see if there is something useful there, like free range chickens looking for bugs.
We are starting to get loons on to the court that look like a deer in the headlights if you ask them what a woman is. That's a very early and strong sign that they are "fluid" on constitutional issues and can be talked into about anything if it is in vogue at the time. It is good to see the adults on the court to be in a position to slow that down a bit although it is like piling sandbags against the tide.
Last edited:
Wow, I almost missed out on watching this.
It clearly required an *entertainment alert.*
That's good shiite right theya.
If I knew who he was I would give him a call and tell him that I was with the DNC and raising funds to make sure that his views on the overturning of Roe are represented in Congress -just to hear him explode. Not sure I could pull it off though. I would probably start laughing part way in.
Last edited:
Joe, what are you doing here, lad? What are you doing?
You have a death wish or something?
Lookin forward to responses from AOC and Warren.
White House email: Biden planned to nominate anti-abortion GOP judge the day of Roe ruling
https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...redith-kentucky-before-roe-ruling/7783107001/
You have a death wish or something?
Lookin forward to responses from AOC and Warren.
White House email: Biden planned to nominate anti-abortion GOP judge the day of Roe ruling
https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...redith-kentucky-before-roe-ruling/7783107001/