Reply to And now Clarence Thomas is talking about taking away contraceptives!

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "And now Clarence Thomas is talking about taking away contraceptives!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

Can you summarize what substantive due process or give a link to an explanation?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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”.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

FACTS ⬆️

This ruling is egregiously wrong by its writer’s own standards. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics