Anonymous wrote:Thomas and wife don’t have kids right? Wonder what they used back in the day?
Anonymous wrote:Hey, where are all those posters who said the court wouldn’t come after birth control?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thomas and wife don’t have kids right? Wonder what they used back in the day?
Some of us can't have kids, and decide not to adopt. I think it's mighty white of both of them to start on taking away birth control and probably causing IVF to be in jeopardy.
Just because I couldn't have kids doesn't mean I want to force others to, or prevent them from getting IVF.
Anonymous wrote:Thomas and wife don’t have kids right? Wonder what they used back in the day?
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...
because the Fertility Industry and the Adoption Industry rely on Upper Middle Class clients and what the egg heads who wanted abortion banned so bad don't realize is that the ONLY result of this SCOTUS decision will be:
1) lots of AA babies overwhelming up foster care because anti-choice rednecks are not going to adopting their forced births
2) massive voting by every woman 18 and older in America to elect a Dem Controlled Senate/ House
Anonymous wrote:He is playing the long game. What he really wants is his marriage annulled.
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...
because the Fertility Industry and the Adoption Industry rely on Upper Middle Class clients and what the egg heads who wanted abortion banned so bad don't realize is that the ONLY result of this SCOTUS decision will be:
1) lots of AA babies overwhelming up foster care because anti-choice rednecks are not going to adopting their forced births
2) massive voting by every woman 18 and older in America to elect a Dem Controlled Senate/ House
Anonymous wrote:Thomas and wife don’t have kids right? Wonder what they used back in the day?
Anonymous wrote:Thomas and wife don’t have kids right? Wonder what they used back in the day?
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”.