Crazy protests incoming.

That pic is a crock. it was a crock the last time you or someone posted it.
It in no way, proves Justice Thomas even said that, or that it's in context. ;/.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 24 2022 12:51pm

lol? it's literally part of his concurring opinion. apparently you're even more clueless than i ever thought. have you actually read any of it, or is your whole position just what you hear on faux news?!

Ok... prove it. A twitter grab or wherever that came from doesn't count.
It's not even a quote. LOL

It's pure hearsay.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 24 2022 12:55pm

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

page 119, lol.

damn you failed hard there. so please now, where are your "say whats"?

Hello Talibanica


Judge Clarence Thomas cites three other judgmentsr:

- “Griswold v. Connecticut ”from 1965 which authorizes contraception

- “Lawrence v. Texas ”of 2003 which makes laws unconstitutional penalizing sexual relations between people of the same sex

- and “Obergefell c. Hodges ”of 2015 which legalizes the marriage of people of the same sex.

Ofc you will dodge.



This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jun 24 2022 12:57pm

Slippery slope is banning abortion. This is the end of a slippery slope of the tail wagging the dog. Most people don't want abortion banned.

Clarence Thomas is trying to get a divorce by banning marriage with his white wife.

All joking aside, the fascist have won and the guys and blacks are next after the women.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 24 2022 01:04pm

Assuming were on the same page... the exact opposite is said, compared to that picture above...





For those on the short bus... this says, that nothing we've done today deals with anything BUT abortion.

They even go on to list separately, that today's decision should NOT have anything to do with the "right to obtain contraceptives, the right to same sex marriage, the right to engage in private sexual acts.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 24 2022 01:08pm

Justice Thomas' opinion starts on page 117: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Fender is lying. It says directly in the opinion that this decision does not impact same sex marriage in any way.

When you read further, he's using this case as an example how due process has been made to mean something other than what it means, and prior to any new due process cases being heard, those cases that built up a precedent for "rights" that do not exist in the Constitution need to be reexamined.

It's a reasoned response, and in all honesty, this should have occurred a century ago. There is still precedent quoted daily that was set by slave owners. Doesn't seem right, does it?

If the opinion of the court has a solid moral foundation, then it can be reexamined and revisited endlessly with no grounds for overturning it. The fact that Thomas' talk of revisiting further precedent to examine it's Constitutionality is alarming to anyone means there's a house built on sand, and a lot of progressives see a wave coming. Those who're building their house, or argument, on solid foundation aren't particularly concerned. Why? The argument provided is that these decisions were not Constitutionally based, but were instead based on the politics of their day, which is something the Supreme Court exists to prevent.