LGBTQ+ Rights and Contraceptives

[The Hammer]

The next items on the Supreme Courts chopping block.

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights



Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
----------
“The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's quite convenient that the religious extremists on the SCOTUS have found a justification to undo progress pertaining to all of their sociopolitical and religious bugbears, isn't it? Just use traditionalism and originalism as a facade to take away any rights that don't conform to theocratic ideology.

 

[stvdv]

The next items on the Supreme Courts chopping block.

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
----------
“The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives],'” the justices added. “So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

It seems they want "more babies" to be born. Well, that makes sense to me.

 

[F1fan]

It's quite convenient that the religious extremists on the SCOTUS have found a justification to undo progress pertaining to all of their sociopolitical and religious bugbears, isn't it? Just use traditionalism and originalism as a facade to take away any rights that don't conform to theocratic ideology.

The question I have is if they are objective judicial members what is their motive to go after these rights? Is it just to remove decisions they think are wrong ONLY because these issues were assessed and ruled in the wrong way due to some objective principle? No, the motive is ideological, both religious and political. These justices were put in place for this agenda, not because they were moderates who ruled in a fair way.

The irony about originalism is that despite the justices pondering how people in the 17 and 1800s thought about our legal structure, they totally ignore the consequences of modern technology. Gun rights i the prime example. The most advanced gun in 1789 was a musket. Would the writers living today write the 2nd amendment? No way. It was written to help maintain militias, that was it. So the originalists are being inconsistent and to my mind, lazy. Morally lazy and intellectually lazy. And now we face a ban on women's reproductive rights and more liberty to carry guns in public. It's as if conservative justices want to sabotage America as a civilized nation.

 

[F1fan]

It seems they want "more babies" to be born. Well, that makes sense to me.

Then conservatives can start producing all they can handle, and leave reproduction as a personal decision, not the state's decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's quite convenient that the religious extremists on the SCOTUS have found a justification to undo progress pertaining to all of their sociopolitical and religious bugbears, isn't it? Just use traditionalism and originalism as a facade to take away any rights that don't conform to theocratic ideology.

We've a problem with rights that aren't enumerated.
So they've no need of a "facade", ie, they can void
rights using cromulent reasoning. (Many of us have
long known this to be a risk.) Thus we must seek
legislation & perhaps even Amendments to get rights
we want codified without question.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We've a problem with rights that aren't enumerated.
So they've no need of a "facade", ie, they can void
rights using cromulent reasoning. (Many of us have
long known this to be a risk.) Thus we must seek
legislation & perhaps even Amendments to get rights
we want codified without question.

I completely agree with that. I just don't expect the same powers who have exploited this loophole to be the ones to add such an amendment.

 

[Revoltingest]

I completely agree with that. I just don't expect the same powers who have exploited this loophole to be the ones to add such an amendment.

The pendulum swings.

 

[F1fan]

The pendulum swings.

Unless the clock is deliberately stopped to prevent it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unless the clock is deliberately stopped to prevent it.

Ever the pessimist, eh.

 

[The Hammer]

It seems they want "more babies" to be born. Well, that makes sense to me.

Why? We can't feed, cloth and house the mouth-breathers that already live here.

 

[The Hammer]

We've a problem with rights that aren't enumerated.
So they've no need of a "facade", ie, they can void
rights using cromulent reasoning. (Many of us have
long known this to be a risk.) Thus we must seek
legislation & perhaps even Amendments to get rights
we want codified without question.

It's a lot easier to swing a 50% SCOTUS majority over a 3/4 house/Senate combo for any sort of amendment to be added.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a lot easier to swing a 50% SCOTUS majority over a 3/4 house/Senate combo for any sort of amendment to be added.

That estimation is above me pay grade.

 

[F1fan]

Ever the pessimist, eh.

Is it just pessimism when there are signs of it happening? I suggest citizens who are not paying very much attention to start paying attention. There are Republicans on this forum who have stated that Democrats are evil and must be stopped. Does that sound like mere pessimism? This is a political atmosphere where having discussions and compromises is rare instead of the normal process.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it just pessimism when there are signs of it happening? I suggest citizens who are not paying very much attention to start paying attention. There are Republicans on this forum who have stated that Democrats are evil and must be stopped. Does that sound like mere pessimism? This is a political atmosphere where having discussions and compromises is rare instead of the normal process.

One can pay attention without pessimism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One can pay attention without pessimism.

It's different when the Bible Thumpers are gunning for your rights and dignity.

 

[stvdv]

Why? We can't feed, cloth and house the mouth-breathers that already live here.

True.

Science is smart, they might have taken care of that problem and more than they anticipated, without people realizing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's different when the Bible Thumpers are gunning for your rights and dignity.

I've not been immune to their attentions.
But I cultivate optimism from planning to
prevail over them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've not been immune to their attentions.
But I cultivate optimism from planning to
prevail over them.

A personal victory of getting out looks to best the only salvageable means of prevailing in this life time.

 

[Revoltingest]

A personal victory of getting out looks to best the only salvageable means of prevailing in this life time.

You've a need to flee?
The only time I ever plotted that was when
armed government thugs would've tried to
force me to kill in Viet Nam.
Since then...my battles have been easier.