Any thoughts on Justice Thomas' opinion?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

Do you consider that what Thomas wrote to be of relevance?

“in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents.” and “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,”

Or do you consider that the comments below are an over-reaction?

Experts told The Texas Tribune that Thomas’ opinion signals an openness from the court to reconsidering other settled legal precedents related to rights the court has ruled are protected by the constitution.

[Thoughtful Monk]

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.

True. I'm not a lawyer but I would think trying to take away SSM by itself would violate due process. I think the government would have to abolish all marriage for it to pass the Supreme Court.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Is the USA now Through the Looking Glass?

The SCOTUS ruled that that the Constitution prevents New York and other states from forcing people to get a special license to carry a firearm, yet a day later decided that the Constitution also implies that the decision on how to regulate decisions to end pregnancies should be left to the states.

So according to those decisions, one situation cannot be left to the states to decide, while another situation can.

[Cow Poke]

Is the USA now Through the Looking Glass?

No.

The SCOTUS ruled that that the Constitution prevents New York and other states from forcing people to get a special license to carry a firearm, yet a day later decided that the Constitution also implies that the decision on how to regulate decisions to end pregnancies should be left to the states.

So according to those decisions, one situation cannot be left to the states to decide, while another situation can.

Correct.

[Mountain Man]

Is the USA now Through the Looking Glass?

The SCOTUS ruled that that the Constitution prevents New York and other states from forcing people to get a special license to carry a firearm, yet a day later decided that the Constitution also implies that the decision on how to regulate decisions to end pregnancies should be left to the states.

So according to those decisions, one situation cannot be left to the states to decide, while another situation can.

Correct. The difference, obviously, is that the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution while the right to murder one's unborn child is not.

[Cow Poke]

Correct. The difference, obviously, is that the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution while the right to murder one's unborn child is not.

It really is that simple.

[Bill the Cat]

Do you consider that what Thomas wrote to be of relevance?

“in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents.” and “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,”

Or do you consider that the comments below are an over-reaction?

Experts told The Texas Tribune that Thomas’ opinion signals an openness from the court to reconsidering other settled legal precedents related to rights the court has ruled are protected by the constitution.

Absolutely it is relevant. Every case at the SCOTUS level should review due process granted by the Constitution.

[Bill the Cat]

True. I'm not a lawyer but I would think trying to take away SSM by itself would violate due process. I think the government would have to abolish all marriage for it to pass the Supreme Court.

I think the government should have stayed out of marriage altogether. It is not the government's responsibility to dig into religious familial relationships, with the exception of where they involve minors.

[Gondwanaland]

Is the USA now Through the Looking Glass?

No, though given your posts I often wonder if you are taking part in the Caterpillar's drugs

The SCOTUS ruled that that the Constitution prevents New York and other states from forcing people to get a special license to carry a firearm, yet a day later decided that the Constitution also implies that the decision on how to regulate decisions to end pregnancies should be left to the states.

So according to those decisions, one situation cannot be left to the states to decide, while another situation can.

Because one (the former) involves an enumerated constitutional right, and the other (the latter) does not. Go get a constitutional amendment for abortion, and they decisions would be the same.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Correct. The difference, obviously, is that the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution while the right to murder one's unborn child is not.

As I understand it, the 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller ruling contained this from the late Justice Scalia - my emphasis.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Last week Justice Thomas appears to have extended Justice Scalia's comment to suggest that the Second and Fourteenth amendments protect:

"an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home".

From here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

How does Justice Thomas' opinion reflect what is contained in the Constitution?

[Cow Poke]

Because one (the former) involves an enumerated constitutional right, and the other (the latter) does not. Go get a constitutional amendment for abortion, and they decisions would be the same.

So, once again, let's look at the Tenth Amendment, which is, of course, part of the Bill of Rights, as is the Second Amendment.

Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Second: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And, now, let's look at what the Constitution says about abortion....

. .

And, there ya have it!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, though given your posts I often wonder if you are taking part in the Caterpillar's drugs

Wrong book. The Caterpillar appears in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

[mossrose]

It really is that simple.

Even I get it. I got it weeks ago. And I'm not a 'Murican, even!

[Cow Poke]

Even I get it. I got it weeks ago. And I'm not a 'Murican, even!

yet

[mossrose]

yet