|
Post by hcpride on Jun 24, 2022 10:10:20 GMT -5
/\ Hopefully the heavy protection in place for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett and their families is also in place for our Justice Thomas. Lots of crazies out there (beyond the armed gentleman arrested for attempted murder reference Justice Kavanaugh two weeks ago).
|
|
|
Post by HC13 on Jun 24, 2022 10:16:25 GMT -5
The concurring opinion by Justice Thomas today swings for the fences. We will not be able to discuss this without getting into politics but the majority opinion was already known and the positions CT takes today have been hinted about before, but he is quite clear in how far he would go in his jurisprudence. No other justice joined his decision although some probably agree with him. There will be plenty of coverage of this, of course. A good accessible analysis will be up on Scotusblog in a few hours. For those who maybe unfamiliar with the website: www.scotusblog.com/
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 24, 2022 10:28:59 GMT -5
/\ Hopefully the heavy protection in place for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett and their families is also in place for our Justice Thomas. Lots of crazies out there (beyond the armed gentleman arrested for attempted murder reference Justice Kavanaugh two weeks ago). They deserve protection, and actually already have it. One of my kids volunteers at a theatre in DC. Justice Breyer has come in with his US Marshal. Another is a restaurant manager in DC. One of the justices has been in, again always accompanied. I am not sure if they have the right to refuse the protection. There were US Marshals outside Kavanaugh's house when the guy with the gun was dropped off by an Uber. He saw them and called 911 and reported himself. Between Secret Service, uniformed security for various agencies, and the US Marshals, I think everyone in DC is being watched all of the time.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 24, 2022 10:44:30 GMT -5
Given his now on-the-record opinion that states should be allowed to outlaw contraception, homosexual activity, and gay marriage, I think I know exactly who Thomas really is.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jun 24, 2022 11:39:00 GMT -5
Where are those decisions by Thomas on contraception, homosexual activity and gay marriage? I am asking seriously, not rhetorically. Today's SC decision seems to overturn Roe based on the shoddy work that was done in initially trying to find a "right" that was being violated (where none actually existed) when it was decided. The decision today (and I have only had time to read summaries and not yet the entire decision) seems to set aside a bad ruling by a previous group of SC judges and gives to states the right to establish their own standards in this regard. Remember NY Has already passed virtually unlimited abortion rights and even protects doctors who terminate the life of a child after a failed abortion attempt. I still remember the standing ovation in the state legislature when it approved this infanticide ruling.
PS: If this is too political, then by all means feel free to remove this post (and any others that cross the "political" line.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Jun 24, 2022 11:42:47 GMT -5
I've read a good part of the decision, but it is very long and I'll have to finish it later. In his dissent Thomas holds nothing back saying it is time to overturn those other rights.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Jun 24, 2022 11:48:10 GMT -5
Where are those decisions by Thomas on contraception, homosexual activity and gay marriage? I am asking seriously, not rhetorically. Today's SC decision seems to overturn Roe based on the shoddy work that was done in initially trying to find a "right" that was being violated (where none actually existed) when it was decided. The decision today (and I have only had time to read summaries and not yet the entire decision) seems to set aside a bad ruling by a previous group of SC judges and gives to states the right to establish their own standards in this regard. Remember NY Has already passed virtually unlimited abortion rights and even protects doctors who terminate the life of a child after a failed abortion attempt. I still remember the standing ovation in the state legislature when it approved this infanticide ruling. PS: If this is too political, then by all means feel free to remove this post (and any others that cross the "political" line. Rgs. Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion today that decisions relating to those issues previously decided need to be reconsidered. He favors giving EACH state the power to decide whether same sex marriage, homosexual activity and use of contraception should be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 24, 2022 11:58:42 GMT -5
Where are those decisions by Thomas on contraception, homosexual activity and gay marriage? I am asking seriously, not rhetorically. Today's SC decision seems to overturn Roe based on the shoddy work that was done in initially trying to find a "right" that was being violated (where none actually existed) when it was decided. The decision today (and I have only had time to read summaries and not yet the entire decision) seems to set aside a bad ruling by a previous group of SC judges and gives to states the right to establish their own standards in this regard. Remember NY Has already passed virtually unlimited abortion rights and even protects doctors who terminate the life of a child after a failed abortion attempt. I still remember the standing ovation in the state legislature when it approved this infanticide ruling. PS: If this is too political, then by all means feel free to remove this post (and any others that cross the "political" line. From his separate opinion (that none of the other conservative justices joined in on, which shows how absolutely batsh-- insane it is): “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [protects contraceptive rights for married couples], Lawrence [prohibits laws against consensual gay sex], and Obergefell [established a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage].” Thomas also dissented on the original Lawrence and Obergefell rulings.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 24, 2022 12:23:15 GMT -5
What kills me is that his basis for rejecting these rulings is that he essentially considers due process to be a judicial fiction. The sad irony, which I'm sure he'll find some loophole around, is that his own marriage is protected by a SCOTUS ruling that found laws against interracial marriage to be a violation of the due process clause. So it would logically follow that he should rule in favor of allowing states to ban interracial marriage.
Maybe he doesn't want to be married to an insurrectionist after all.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Jun 24, 2022 12:37:13 GMT -5
This is going to continue to be fascinating theater to watch - a Supreme Court makeup and opinion that is continually diverging from the overall opinion trends of the majority of the American public.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 24, 2022 14:04:06 GMT -5
This is going to continue to be fascinating theater to watch - a Supreme Court makeup and opinion that is continually diverging from the overall opinion trends of the majority of the American public. Sometimes issues one group (reading certain media and/or listening to the loudest protests) ) is convinced is outside the mainstream turn out to be very much in the mainstream. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Jun 24, 2022 14:22:12 GMT -5
Of the issues mentioned, supra, which ones do you feel the "mainstream" do not support. Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 24, 2022 14:32:33 GMT -5
While news about SCOTUS should be above politics and simply be the rule of law, it would seem that our society, if not the justices themselves, have moved away from that lofty concept.
In the spirit of the no-politics rule on Crossports, I intend not to participate in this thread any further and will diligently try to avoid eye contact with it.
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 24, 2022 14:51:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Jun 24, 2022 15:02:02 GMT -5
/\ Hopefully the heavy protection in place for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett and their families is also in place for our Justice Thomas. Lots of crazies out there (beyond the armed gentleman arrested for attempted murder reference Justice Kavanaugh two weeks ago). Unforturnately the doctors that were gunned down and the clinics that have been bombed over the years did not get the same protection.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Jun 24, 2022 15:18:03 GMT -5
This is going to continue to be fascinating theater to watch - a Supreme Court makeup and opinion that is continually diverging from the overall opinion trends of the majority of the American public. Sometimes issues one group (reading certain media and/or listening to the loudest protests) ) is convinced is outside the mainstream turn out to be very much in the mainstream. Just a thought. I think the first thing we'd need to define is how large of a percentage of public support is needed for something to merit being named "mainstream." Is it simple majority? Is it 60%? 67%? I don't know. Maybe some entity has defined it already, but maybe it's still up to interpretation. According to the latest polling conducted by the Pew Research Center, 61% of Americans are in favor of abortion in "all or most cases" compared to 37% who feel it should be illegal in all or most cases. That's not too far off from a 2-to-1 advantage. In my opinion, if almost 2 out of 3 people believe something, that's mainstream. It's hard to get 2 out of 3 people to agree on anything these days. Naturally, those percentages shift when applying certain demographic data - religious beliefs/affiliation, party, education level, age, race, sex, etc., but the research is pretty interesting. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/. I'm going to stick with my assertion that at least when it comes to overall public opinion, the Court's decision today diverges significantly from the mainstream American stance. It looks like the research was conducted in March prior to the topic coming back to the forefront of the nation's conscience with the leak last month. I think if the same research was conducted now, I'd guess we'd be at least at 2 to 1 in favor if not more.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jun 24, 2022 15:38:45 GMT -5
/\ Hopefully the heavy protection in place for Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett and their families is also in place for our Justice Thomas. Lots of crazies out there (beyond the armed gentleman arrested for attempted murder reference Justice Kavanaugh two weeks ago). Unforturnately the doctors that were gunned down and the clinics that have been bombed over the years did not get the same protection. Nor the crisis pregnancy centers that have been attacked in recent months
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 24, 2022 16:05:15 GMT -5
While news about SCOTUS should be above politics and simply be the rule of law, it would seem that our society, if not the justices themselves, have moved away from that lofty concept. In the spirit of the no-politics rule on Crossports, I intend not to participate in this thread any further and will diligently try to avoid eye contact with it. Come on in, the water's fine.🙂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 16:17:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Jun 24, 2022 16:18:08 GMT -5
Past performance is most certainly a guarantee of current opinions. No surprises on this board for sure. We all know where we stand. No sense in beating a dead horse. Time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jun 24, 2022 16:20:46 GMT -5
As graduates of a Catholic school and as Catholics we rejoice that the Supreme Court chooses life. (And returns abortion to the states to decide). An awkward spot for Uber- liberal Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 24, 2022 16:24:15 GMT -5
So, if the decision dropped during the school year PVR would have sprung for fireworks?🙂
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 24, 2022 16:28:49 GMT -5
What will the woke NFL do, pull the superbowl out of no-abortion states? I'm not going to join the moral arguments which can't be won but there are many other issues this ruling raises that are fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 24, 2022 16:32:56 GMT -5
As graduates of a Catholic school and as Catholics we rejoice that the Supreme Court chooses life. (And returns abortion to the states to decide). An awkward spot for Uber- liberal Catholics. Not really
|
|
|
Post by clmetsfan on Jun 24, 2022 16:59:48 GMT -5
As graduates of a Catholic school and as Catholics we rejoice that the Supreme Court chooses life. (And returns abortion to the states to decide). An awkward spot for Uber- liberal Catholics. After rejoicing, I'm sure you'll also be fighting hard to ensure that those families whose mothers are forced to carry to term (even in cases of rape and incest) also have access to the necessary food, education, and healthcare welfare benefits that are necessary to ensure that they don't needlessly suffer as they grow. "Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fu--ed.”
|
|