Why didn't Thomas mention Loving vs Va as a substantive due process case that should be overruled?
I think I know the answer, obviously, but can anyone give me a less cynical one?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
TexChik · F
Was it a case before the court? And didnt the scotus make an unusual ruling about Miranda rights?
@TexChik Its not, and that that ruling wasn't about Miranda rights, per se, as much as limiting remedies for violation of Constitutional Rights, which is the approach that this Court seems to be taking with regard to Qualified Immunity, instead of trying to actually look at the issue and try and so something constructive about the mess it has become.
Having said that, here's what I'm talking about:
My question is why would he omit Loving here and mention the other ones?
Having said that, here's what I'm talking about:
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due pro-
cess jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in
other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con-traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right
to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge-
fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar-
riage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are
unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has
asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amend-
ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDon-
ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree
that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under-
stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor-
tion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ-
ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
597 U. S. ____ (2022) (THOMAS, J., concurring)cess jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in
other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con-traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right
to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge-
fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar-
riage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are
unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has
asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amend-
ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDon-
ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree
that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be under-
stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor-
tion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ-
ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
My question is why would he omit Loving here and mention the other ones?
TexChik · F
@MistyCee Its really not goofy. NY set up a law to subjectively deny the rights of lawful gun owners to defend themselves. No other protected right requires the approval of GOVERNMENT agents before is valid. "Shall not be infringed" means even by liberals. It just cut the legs out from under back door methods of infringing on gun rights.
@TexChik I wasn't saying his "2ndAmendment shouldn't be a second class right" angle was goofy. That's actually a pretty cute point, although i think it's sort of disigenuous to not acknowledge the whole prior restraint case law and the fact that every other enumerated right has been subjected to some sort of "means-end" analysis.
Under this new modification of Scalia's version of originalism, through, under Bruin, there's no way a State can protect the lives of its citizens or pass a law unless it can be no more restrictive of individual (right to self defense) than other laws in effect in 1791, subject of course to Thomas' own rejection of pre 1791 laws that don't support his outcome.
I know you like to call me a "lib" and say that's explains why I'm always wrong, but Alito, Kavanaugh and even Barrett, not to mention Roberts and the "real libs" on the Court seem to be pulling away from Thomas, and I kind of get why.
Maybe he's on the right "side" sometimes, but he's so far out on a limb that people are backing away and distancing themselves from him. Kind of like....
Under this new modification of Scalia's version of originalism, through, under Bruin, there's no way a State can protect the lives of its citizens or pass a law unless it can be no more restrictive of individual (right to self defense) than other laws in effect in 1791, subject of course to Thomas' own rejection of pre 1791 laws that don't support his outcome.
I know you like to call me a "lib" and say that's explains why I'm always wrong, but Alito, Kavanaugh and even Barrett, not to mention Roberts and the "real libs" on the Court seem to be pulling away from Thomas, and I kind of get why.
Maybe he's on the right "side" sometimes, but he's so far out on a limb that people are backing away and distancing themselves from him. Kind of like....
TexChik · F
@MistyCee I am surprised Roberts voted with him. He's more rino than conservative. Biden deserves all of Thomas' fury. But now we have the speaker of the House and AOC and other ranking house libs claiming the SCOTUS ruling is invalid , AOC and Obama are calling for riots. Is that how Democrats obey the law? If they dont like it they go out and destroy property , kill people and loot? Not the way to endear themselves to voters.
@TexChik They're not my side. Pelosi is posturing, AOC is acting like a 13 year old, but my not condemning them on SW doesnt really bother me.
What really does bother me is the us vs them mentality.
If I'm actually wrong on something, and you can explain it to me, I'll listen.
But this 4 year old us vs them shit gets old.
What really does bother me is the us vs them mentality.
If I'm actually wrong on something, and you can explain it to me, I'll listen.
But this 4 year old us vs them shit gets old.
@TexChik Did I ever claim to be divine or an angel?
I frigging admit I'm human, make mistakes and can be wrong.
I've got way more issues with crap like stupidity, dishonesty, and immorality, but it just so happens that I only started posting about it when Trumpism, dishonesty, criminality, and amorality totally encompassed and took over the "right."
I'm not a huge Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney fan, for example, but I appreciate their virtues, and, for that matter, I just got called out today for "defending" Scalia.
I frigging admit I'm human, make mistakes and can be wrong.
I've got way more issues with crap like stupidity, dishonesty, and immorality, but it just so happens that I only started posting about it when Trumpism, dishonesty, criminality, and amorality totally encompassed and took over the "right."
I'm not a huge Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney fan, for example, but I appreciate their virtues, and, for that matter, I just got called out today for "defending" Scalia.