Any thoughts on Justice Thomas' opinion?

[Bill the Cat]

What do you think about it H_A?

Inigo.gif

[rogue06]

Not very easily at all.

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent.

And as I noted in a different thread awhile back, one cannot simply change an amendment as the 21st Amendment makes clear.

We couldn't amend the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) so an entirely new and different one, the 21st, was passed repealing it.

[Gondwanaland]

It also follows then that those amendments can likewise be changed. Am I right?

Through the correct process, yes. We saw that with the 21st amendment, which repealed the 18th.

[Gondwanaland]

Given Thomas' opinion does the possibility of rulings on contraception and SSM raise any concerns? I can imagine the latter probably would not among many here but does that open the way to everything now to be challenged?

Could possible laws under consideration is some states now criminalise IUDs and emergency contraception? Could a potential case brought to the SCOTUS possibly lead to overturning inter-racial marriages? [as a jocular aside that would certainly place Justice Thomas in an invidious position]!

What did the ruling intend by the remark:

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion;"? Is that a reference to the wording contained in the original document drawn up in the eighteenth century? Or a reference to the Constitution as it now exists with all its later amendments?


The following article deals with Thomas' opinion.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06...-sex-marriage/Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide, which experts said could have criminalized the use of IUDs and emergency contraception. The bill ultimately failed, but Ruzzo fears that now, other states will try to bar contraception through strict abortion laws, even though contraceptives are also used to treat disorders in reproductive organs and manage premenstrual syndrome in teen girls.

“Unfortunately, birth control is at the forefront right now,” Ruzzo said. “[The ruling] really just has a painful amount of rippling implications for progress that we’ve made toward these really basic freedoms that people have come to expect in their daily lives.”

Victoria Kirby York, deputy executive director at the National Black Justice Coalition, which advocates for LGBTQ civil rights, said the court’s ruling could also open the door to rolling back rights like interracial marriage, marriage equality and other civil rights.

“Constitutional rights should not be played with or taken away,” she said. “Constitutional rights should only be expanded to ensure everyone has access to the same rights.”

Kirby York said the court’s opinion went against how the court had construed the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law in the past, and has now opened the door for other unenumerated rights to be challenged.

“We will have to have individual cases on these things come before the court,” she said.

I've been telling liberals I know for decades not to rest on their laurels if they want something like gay marriage or abortion to be an actual right. If they actually care about it, go put in the effort and get the will of the people behind you to codify it as a constitutional amendment. Otherwise they're just asking for disappointment. And lo and behold, look what happened. Wouldn't be surprised if it happens with those other things too.

[Gondwanaland]

Also, we shouldn't act like the Supreme Court never changes precedent. After all Brown vs Board of Education changed the precedence of Plessy vs Ferguson.

Yep: notably an even longer-held precedent than even Roe was.

[Gondwanaland]

After I see that you actually understand what it is you're discussing.
I have NO concerns with what Justice Thomas said.

See, she wants you to argue against the article so she can pull her whole "well I didn't say that, ask them", instead of arguing against her, herself. That's why she's so eager to try to push you into arguing against the article.

[Gondwanaland]

I asked you to give your opinion on an article from a news outlet.

Translation: "please stop arguing with me, please pretty please argue with my article so I can do my 'well I didn't say that, they did, ask them' fallacy, because I have no clue what I'm actually talking about."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I did.

From that remark I deduce you consider the various comments made in the article to have no actual significance.

[Cow Poke]

From that remark I deduce you consider the various comments made in the article to have no actual significance.

OK.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What do you think about it H_A?

You know my position on abortion.

As to whether there will be some attempt by concerned parties to remove the right to to same sex sexual intimacy and same sex marriage, we shall have to wait and see.

[Cow Poke]

You know my position on abortion.

As to whether there will be some attempt by concerned parties to remove the right to to same sex sexual intimacy and same sex marriage, we shall have to wait and see.

With regards to the supreme court, there would have to be a case presented to them that has worked its way up to them, and those who attempt to bring such a case have to have standing before the court.

Can you envision such a challenge?

[Cow Poke]

You know my position on abortion.

As to whether there will be some attempt by concerned parties to remove the right to to same sex sexual intimacy and same sex marriage, we shall have to wait and see.

And, I'll add --- this appears to be akin to the "keep your courts out of my bedroom" while the same sex crowd parades their "bedroom" through the public streets.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

With regards to the supreme court, there would have to be a case presented to them that has worked its way up to them, and those who attempt to bring such a case have to have standing before the court.

Can you envision such a challenge?

Only time will tell.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And, I'll add --- this appears to be akin to the "keep your courts out of my bedroom" while the same sex crowd parades their "bedroom" through the public streets.

[Bill the Cat]

You know my position on abortion.

As to whether there will be some attempt by concerned parties to remove the right to to same sex sexual intimacy and same sex marriage, we shall have to wait and see.

SSM, and honestly, marriage in general, is not an enunciated right of the Federal Government, so stretching it to be included in the due process clause was shifty. Not as bad as RvW inventing a "right to privacy", mind you, but bad precedent nonetheless.