Originally posted by NorrinRadd
View Post
Though I think I expressed myself ambiguously--my statement of how it wouldn't matter if Griswold or Lawrence was overturned because there's no desire from legislatures to enact laws banning contraceptive usage or gay sex was in regards to the fearmongering; thus it was me saying that even if they were overturned people wouldn't have to worry. (Obergefell is another matter, but only a handful of states would actually go back to not recognizing same-sex marriage again, and I expect even those that did would be in some way more friendly to it)
But people do still fearmonger, and it certainly doesn't help at all when Clarence Thomas singles out Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as cases to revisit (he doesn't as explicitly call for overturning them as I thought he did upon a review, but it's clear that's what he has in mind), which are the exact same cases that people have been fearmongering about since the draft got released. Even if he was unaware of that due to not paying that much attention to the news (or to the news in which people are fearmongering), surely one of his clerks would have picked up on that and could have notified him of this. He could have easily made his point, which was about him wanting to get rid of the idea of substantial due process entirely, without calling out the exact three cases that people were most fearmongering about prior.
Comment