Quote (Ghot @ 24 Jun 2022 19:03)

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

Quote (Ghot @ 24 Jun 2022 21:03)

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

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jun 24 2022 03:07pm)

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.

Quote (fender @ 24 Jun 2022 19:09)

what part of

"in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ-
ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

did you not understand? that's literally what he wrote, not "hearsay". it's what he explicitly stated he wants to do in the future. so again, where are your "say whats"?

Quote (fender @ Jun 24 2022 03:09pm)

what part of

"in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ-
ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

did you not understand? that's literally what he wrote, not "hearsay". it's what he explicitly stated he wants to do in the future. so again, where are your "say whats"?

Quote (Ghot @ 24 Jun 2022 21:09)

Exactly...
But the left doesn't believe that the TRUTH will set you free. LOL

Quote (fender @ Jun 24 2022 02:14pm)

stop dodging, no one claimed TODAY'S decision was about contraception and same sex marriage - it's what they are going after in the FUTURE, as he clearly states. your desperate straw-man doesn't magically make what he explicitly declares as his intention disappear.

Quote (fender @ Jun 24 2022 03:09pm)

what part of

"in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ-
ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

did you not understand? that's literally what he wrote, not "hearsay". it's what he explicitly stated he wants to do in the future. so again, where are your "say whats"?

Quote (Ghot @ Jun 24 2022 03:13pm)

I assume you know the definition of reconsider?
It does not mean toss out, rule against, etc. It means re-examine to make sure there were no mistakes made in those rulings.

Which by the way... IS the supreme court's job.


Or again for the short bus...

Since such an obvious error was made in Roe v. Wade, we should check to see if there were errors made in similar cases for similar reasons.

Quote (fender @ Jun 24 2022 03:14pm)

stop dodging, no one claimed TODAY'S decision was about contraception and same sex marriage - it's what they are going after in the FUTURE, as he clearly states. your desperate straw-man doesn't magically make what he explicitly declares as his intention disappear.

Quote (Ghot @ 24 Jun 2022 20:52)