Roe vs Wade overturned

[JollyRoger]

The precedent for the right to travel dates back only to 1868, so the Supreme Court should have no problem overturning it.

 

[Lexicus]

Given some of the reasoning in the opinion, Brown v. Board of Education should be at risk, but I think in reality, they have gone as far as they are going to go. Could be 50 years away from restoring Roe.

I think it's likely that Obergefell and Griswold will be overturned too.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Maybe the 13th Admendment will be next.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

What about Loving?

 

[IglooDame]

I think it's likely that Obergefell and Griswold will be overturned too.

I knew my marriage would be at risk when I came out, but not because legal same-sex marriage was potentially off the table.

 

[IglooDame]

What about Loving?

Someone else noted, it seems unlikely that Clarence Thomas will detract from the constitutional protections for his own marriage. Then again, he strikes me like the kind of person who would do exactly that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The article @GenMarshall linked:

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

By The Associated Press and MARK SHERMAN
Published: Jun. 24, 2022 at 10:13 AM EDT|Updated: 23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ended the nation’s constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump. Both sides predicted the fight over abortion would continue, in state capitals and in Washington, and Justice Clarence Thomas, part of Friday’s majority, called on the court to overturn other high court rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex and the use of contraceptives.

West Virginia’s lone clinic performing abortions stopped after Friday’s decision.

https://www.wistv.com/2022/06/24/su...bortions. Copyright 2022 The Associated Press.

 

[Remorseless1]

The article @GenMarshall linked:

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion


https://www.wistv.com/2022/06/24/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-allowing-states-ban-abortions/#:~:text=WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on,to ban abortions. Copyright 2022 The Associated Press.

The headline on this should be "Women's status as second class citizens reaffirmed"

Women in the US no longer have control on what happens inside her body. And the Court isn't finished, according to defects Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, over the counter contraceptives decriminalization of homosexuality are now on the table. The evangelicals are drooling over the idea they get to force people to live the way evangelicals tell to do - or else. Meanwhile we're fortifying schools, government buildings, movie theaters, etc. while tens of thousands of people are again flocking to food banks. Thank God we're going after the issues crucial to the lives of the people. Eff the Republicans and their fascist leanings.

 

[Sarin]

US absolute lack of moderate representation in government strikes again.

 

[JollyRoger]

What about Loving?

 

[Lexicus]

Someone else noted, it seems unlikely that Clarence Thomas will detract from the constitutional protections for his own marriage. Then again, he strikes me like the kind of person who would do exactly that.

Roberts is also probably not insane enough to do this.

 

[JollyRoger]

Since corporations are people too, can a state now ban the failure to incorporate once there is conception of a corporation?

 

[Angst]

im actually so confused but not really, surprised but not really, as to what exactly this is to accomplish in regards to voter base. while the christian right is very loud, moderates hate this. as much as i think danish politics are cynically serving dirty industry for the middle class (which is, i admit, better than ignoring well-being of that class entirely, as in the case in the states; it's just sad for green energy), at least they're servants of their actual constituents

like my confusion is not really as to why, because i understand the powers where this came from, but as to how the hell we got here. same goes for a lot of things (eg healthcare) that generally have more public support than what reps want to do

also why do people keep voting them in if they refuse to serve their constituents?

 

[EgonSpengler]

New York Times, 24 June 2022 - "Thomas’s concurring opinion raises questions about what rights might be next."

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, laid out a vision that prompted concerns about what other rights could disappear: The same rationale that the Supreme Court used to declare there was no right to abortion, he said, should also be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations and same-sex marriage.

[Justice Thomas] took aim at three other landmark cases that relied on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 decision that declared married couples had a right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case invalidating sodomy laws and making same-sex sexual activity legal across the country; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry.

Justice Thomas wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established.

 

[Lexicus]

Since corporations are people too, can a state now ban the failure to incorporate once there is conception of a corporation?

Ralph Wiggum: I'm a corporation

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know if it's memetically useful, but we're talking precedents created by highly bipartisan judges being overturned by judges whose seating is definitely controversial. So, this side-track is less about 'fairness' but more about how winner-take-all-divisive this change is. A lot of people are happy to win at any cost, but there will be others who have many different angles into what bothers them.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

The Supreme Court seems to be dropping a bomb shell daily at the moment. They are not holding back. Recent rulings on guns, police and abortion all being predictably right wing. Next big one will probably be making it so courts can't block election maps, which will make gerrymandering even worse. Despite what Maga fanatics claim, Trump achieved very little during his term. However his appointment of 3 fairly young pretty right wing justices to the Supreme Court is paying huge dividends. Based on their actions he might eventually be judged to be one of the most successful Republican presidents in quite a while for conservative causes. God knows what will come next, but it's probably not going to be good for civil rights.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The headline on this should be "Women's status as second class citizens reaffirmed"

Women in the US no longer have control on what happens inside her body.And the Court isn't finished, according to defects Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, over the counter contraceptives decriminalization of homosexuality are now on the table.

Generally, I agree with the gist of your post. Couple points of order...

Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice along with John Roberts. He is not however, the Chief Justice, John Roberts is. In any case, Justice Clarence Thomas is, himself, currently in an interracial marriage, with, as it so happens, an ultra-conservative, QAnon conspiracy-theorist, election-Big-lie-peddling, MAGA true-believer named Ginny Thomas. Their marriage has been prominently mentioned in the news recently as a result of her trafficking in election lies and QAnon conspiracy nonsense while her husband sits on the Supreme Court. Anyway, the point is, I doubt he would favor banning interracial marriage, being in one himself, but as for the rest of the stuff you mentioned, yeah he'd be on board with all of that.

Homosexuality is legal, not decriminalized. That's a technical nitpick, but I'm mentioning it because with something as personal as sexuality, something being fully legal, versus it being "decriminalized" can make a big difference in terms of people's peace of mind and freedom to go about their daily lives and be seen as an upstanding member of their community. "Decriminalized" is where something stays du jure illegal, but it is no longer enforced, for the most part, so it is de facto allowed. The difference is the authorities can still technically prosecute you for the activity, which allows you to be selectively harassed for arbitrary or malicious reasons. It also potentially impacts your social standing, because since you are still technically breaking the law, some people will still view you as a "criminal" and look down on you and/or shun you.

The bottom line is that having cleared the way for states to ban abortion, Thomas and the other Conservative Justices can and will now move on to allowing more discrimination against LGBTQ people and rolling back gay marriage rights and more. This is possibly just the beginning.

 

[João III]

I notice that Thomas doesn't want to have a tilt at the precedents legalising mixed-race marriages. Now why would that be, do you think?

I believe Loving was not based on "substantive due process" like those decisions listed. Still, rather convenient for himself

 

[GamezRule]

Having read very little about him but still enough, Clarence Thomas is liable to overturn the Civil Rights Act so I wouldn’t be surprised if he ruled against interracial marriage.