And now Clarence Thomas is talking about taking away contraceptives!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

No. Thomas thinks these issues should be decided by legislatures as was intended by the founders. The left has really caused their own problems using the court to accomplish what they didn’t want to bother to have to work through Congress. And here’s the result. Enjoy.

Ah, a Confederate. How charming. I wonder if Thomas has fully thought through his muck brained line of “reasoning.” I know you have and you like where it’s going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

No. Thomas thinks these issues should be decided by legislatures as was intended by the founders. The left has really caused their own problems using the court to accomplish what they didn’t want to bother to have to work through Congress. And here’s the result. Enjoy.

The Founders left certain unenumerated rights to the people. I find it hard to believe those misogynistic, slave holding bastards would have tolerated a state interfering in such an intimate way with their property (ie their wife). If the federal or state governments can’t quarter troops in your house in time of war or search your papers without just cause, what sort of logic would lead them to go conclude that it’s perfectly fine for the state to manage the size of a man’s family?

Abortifacients have been in use since ancient times. Women have long had tricks for “bringing on the menses”. If there was any crime it would be a woman doing it herself against her husbands will, not some interest in fetal personhood. Children’s lives were cheap in America in the 1780s. If you had 10 and 3 lived to have kids of their own you were a lucky man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, where are all those posters who said the court wouldn’t come after birth control?

I said that and I was wrong.

Thank you for admitting this. I'm curious why you thought it wasn't possible. Do you now understand that it's not hyperbole to claim that 11-year-old rape victims will not only be forced to have their rapist's child but will need to share custody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fertility doctors are super wealthy. I'm surprised they have not better organized on this issue. AMA is usually really smart about leveraging donations to influence Congress and the courts...

I don't think BC will disappear. Why? Because big pharma and doctors can make loads of money over women's reproductive systems. And they can influence Congress to safeguard their profits....in the end, these decisions will be made not by the Court, Congress, or the People - but by big corporations.

Don't be a fool. There's not a lot of money to be made in something as simple as birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

No. Thomas thinks these issues should be decided by legislatures as was intended by the founders. The left has really caused their own problems using the court to accomplish what they didn’t want to bother to have to work through Congress. And here’s the result. Enjoy.

The Founders left certain unenumerated rights to the people. I find it hard to believe those misogynistic, slave holding bastards would have tolerated a state interfering in such an intimate way with their property (ie their wife). If the federal or state governments can’t quarter troops in your house in time of war or search your papers without just cause, what sort of logic would lead them to go conclude that it’s perfectly fine for the state to manage the size of a man’s family?

Abortifacients have been in use since ancient times. Women have long had tricks for “bringing on the menses”. If there was any crime it would be a woman doing it herself against her husbands will, not some interest in fetal personhood. Children’s lives were cheap in America in the 1780s. If you had 10 and 3 lived to have kids of their own you were a lucky man.

+1

Republicans are idiots.

[Anonymous]

It's the GOP end game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dude and his cultist bride don't have kids, right? Also, if they strike down "loveing" isn't his marriage moot?

Signed, not a lawyer

They have probably never had sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individua[b]ls against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

DING DING! You nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individua[b]ls against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

DING DING! You nailed it.

Thank god some people understand what is happening. It’s a five alarm fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

No. Thomas thinks these issues should be decided by legislatures as was intended by the founders. The left has really caused their own problems using the court to accomplish what they didn’t want to bother to have to work through Congress. And here’s the result. Enjoy.

The Founders left certain unenumerated rights to the people. I find it hard to believe those misogynistic, slave holding bastards would have tolerated a state interfering in such an intimate way with their property (ie their wife). If the federal or state governments can’t quarter troops in your house in time of war or search your papers without just cause, what sort of logic would lead them to go conclude that it’s perfectly fine for the state to manage the size of a man’s family?

Abortifacients have been in use since ancient times. Women have long had tricks for “bringing on the menses”. If there was any crime it would be a woman doing it herself against her husbands will, not some interest in fetal personhood. Children’s lives were cheap in America in the 1780s. If you had 10 and 3 lived to have kids of their own you were a lucky man.

FACTS ⬆️

This ruling is egregiously wrong by its writer’s own standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This substantive due process argument was used in many other cases, including Roe v Wade. Clarence Thomas suggested revisiting those decisions based on this dubious argument of substantive due process.
The concept of substantive due process was prominently argued in Dred Scott.

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?

In its most basic sense it’s a judicial construct derived from the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated into the Fourteenth, that is supposed to protect individuals against government actions that exceed their constitutional or legislative authority. It’s the underpinning of the “undue burden” standard in the Casey decision.

Pp here. Thx. So, the premise is (or I guess “was”) that substantive due process means the government cannot interfere with people rights to freedom, liberty, privacy to marry someone of the same sex, have an abortion, use contraception, etc. Then if Thomas is arguing that doesn’t exist wouldn’t that mean there are no limits on government’s ability to interfere?? That doesn’t seem very “conservative”.

No. Thomas thinks these issues should be decided by legislatures as was intended by the founders. The left has really caused their own problems using the court to accomplish what they didn’t want to bother to have to work through Congress. And here’s the result. Enjoy.

The Founders left certain unenumerated rights to the people. I find it hard to believe those misogynistic, slave holding bastards would have tolerated a state interfering in such an intimate way with their property (ie their wife). If the federal or state governments can’t quarter troops in your house in time of war or search your papers without just cause, what sort of logic would lead them to go conclude that it’s perfectly fine for the state to manage the size of a man’s family?

Abortifacients have been in use since ancient times. Women have long had tricks for “bringing on the menses”. If there was any crime it would be a woman doing it herself against her husbands will, not some interest in fetal personhood. Children’s lives were cheap in America in the 1780s. If you had 10 and 3 lived to have kids of their own you were a lucky man.

FACTS ⬆️

This ruling is egregiously wrong by its writer’s own standards.

I take a perverse joy in the fact that they’re too stupid to grasp that. I know they hate women and probably ******bate to the idea of women dying in pain, but they really think they’re the smartest people and that they’ve really made a good point.

They’re not and they didn’t. These are dumb people, slow witted folks propped up by dark money and propelled forward by hatred.

[Anonymous]

The worst thing about Scalia dying is that there’s no one telling Thomas he’s an idiot anymore. It was very effective for a long time. Now this pervert is loose in the bubble while his wife is out betraying her country. At some point the GOP is going to have no choice but to hand him over to save themselves. And hand him over they will - he’s still a black guy, after all.