I think my characterization of Thomas' Concurrence is correct, Yawn. And judging from your post, I don't think you read Thomas' Concurrence. Here is what Thomas said:
"[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous. [Citation omitted]. [W]e have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. [Citation omitted]. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated." Thom Con., pg. 3.
Note the words of temporal emphasis (which I have bolded for you), Yawn. Especially note the words "AFTER overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions." Those are express, literal indications for you as to what Thomas intends to do going forward.
Thomas then laid out a lengthy road map of exactly how he would overrule at least the three cases he specifically mentioned (notably Loving which allowed miscegenation was not listed). See Thom Con., pgs. 4-7.
Thomas then concluded:
"Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."
Again, note the temporal language, Yawnie. And especially consider Thomas' concluding sentence (which I have bolded for you) and the words "earliest opportunity." That is a Judge on a mission to destroy the doctrine of substantive due process, which Thomas has criticized for decades. He did a lot more than "point out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to Roe" as you claim. If you had actually read Thomas Concurrence, you would have come to the quick conclusion that Thomas is going to find cases where the Court will "eliminate [substantive due process] from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity." There is really no other way read what he said other than that.
Thank you for proving my point for me, though you could have done it in fewer words. Your initial claim was Thomas is going to find cases and ways to overturn precedent. It is not in his power or purview to pick exactly which cases get to the whole court, yet alone which cases get started at the grassroots level where all the cases originate anyway.
I didn't prove your original point, which was that Thomas merely "pointed out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to roe. He never said he was going to look for cases to overturn the old ones though." I refuted (disproved) your original point by referring to (and bolding) the actual language of the Thomas Concurrence that you clearly never read. In your "response" you don't dispute any of it or even mention a single word in Thomas' Concurrence.
Instead, what you did was move to a new point/argument as a deflection. Your new point is that "It is not in [Thomas'] power or purview to pick exactly which cases get to the whole court." On this, you are WRONG again. It is absolutely within the power AND purview of a Supreme Court Justice to try and pick cases that are heard on writ of certiorari. No one else decides what cases the SCOTUS hears and decides. Thomas has made very clear in the Concurrence in Dobbs, that again you never read, which cases he is going to look for at his "earliest opportunity."
Very clear that many posters are upset they do not get to have intimate relationships with women (Let it Rupp, Yawn, bluh).
These "incel" types love the fact that blanket abortion bans (especially those that have no exceptions for maternal health, rape, or incest) punish women and men who get to have sex.
No IVF, no sex, no abortions for women unless they want it with me.
The argument I was addressing was the claim an organisation - Planned Parenthood - having been founded by "racial supremacists" must be therefore implementing their goals. if that is true then the same argument must therefore apply to the founding of the US by slave-owners. Thus, it is still implementing their vices. if you don't accept the latter then the former doesn't follow, either.
Planned parenthood did implement some of the goals of Sanger early on. That’s why they targeted poor communities that were made of people of color.
The issue is that, multiple times in this topic and others, you have accused the United States as being the leader in oppression. If you believe that, based on your own assertions, it’s because of how the country was founded. You have to also hold that same standard to planned parenthood.
I can be logically consistent and say yes, the US and planned parenthood had some troublesome issues in their genesis but worked toward remedying those issues.
You, on the other hand, demonize the US but want to give planned parenthood a pass. Thus, you are intellectually inconsistent .
Sanger was concerned about poor communities of color being manipulated by religious zealots into having multitudes of children to "serve God" all the while being driven further into desperation and poverty with each child. Sanger wanted to give poor communities of color the same options of family planning (i.e. birth control, Sanger was against abortion) that wealthy families had.
Sanger was a eugenicist, but did not believe in using race as a basis for eugenics. Sanger, like many others at the time (including Alexander Graham Bell, Hellen Keller, Churchill, and WEB DuBois) believed that eugenics could be used to rid the human races of mental disabilities, birth defects and other genetic diseases. While their goals were on the surface benevolent, in practice, eugenics resulted in mass sterilization drives that targeted minorities.
Showing up to the Roe v Wade thread to debate mens rights is peak comedy. High IQ low EQ.
So you noticed the high IQ, hah. EQ doesn’t mean very much, especially on an online forum, and was invented to make low IQ people like perhaps yourself feel good. Knock yourself out with personal attacks and dismissiveness. I’m
At any minute I’m sure you’ll start telling me how great of a show Rick and Morty is. I grew out of this phase in my teenage years when I realized adopting “smart” as a core personality trait rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Not everyone grows out of it.
Green Day frontman Billie Joe Armstrong has told fans at a concert that he intends to renounce his United States citizenship following the US Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade -- a controversial move that eliminates the federal constitutional right to abortion nationwide. During a performance as part of the band's Hella Mega tour at the London Stadium in the UK on Friday, Armstrong expressed his frustration as he told the crowd: "F**k America. I'm f***king renouncing my citizenship. I'm f**king coming here." He went on to say there's "too much f**king stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f**king excuse for a country,"
Like every other pro-lifer embarrassed to admit they have no issue punishing women for political team sports (for various unsavory reasons), you don't actually spell out your positions. You claim to take main issue with late-term abortions and don't mind commonsense laws, but you openly cheer Roe being overturnedbasically because you think the legal reasoning was poor 50 years ago. So you expressly avoid having to make any statements about what you actually think about abortion, instead operating on some more abstract claims about legal doctrine, etc.
This is all fine and academic and reasonably thoughtful if we lived in fantasy land. Except, you ignore and then nonchalantly dismiss any women-specific concerns across this whole arc. You dismiss the risks and burdens of pregnancy, you ignore or discard the already-present radical changes to abortion laws far in excess of what most of America deems reasonable, you downplay disenfranchised women already being prosecuted for innocent pregnancy complications.
You basically do everything you can to avoid acknowledging that women are going to suffer immediately in the post-Roe world. It's possible to agree that Roe was bad legal reasoning but that the immediate effects to women and the general idea of overruling precedent to remove rights from people is very, very bad. You can't bring yourself to do that. You have to dismiss or downplay every negative argument against Roe being repealed.
That's a sure sign of someone who has a much more radically conservative view about abortion, trending into 'actively hostile to women' but is embarrassed to admit. My accusations are not dishonest or vacuous. I'm just disappointed in posters who try to hide their embrace of radical, harmful positions behind distractions and abstractions. Just own it.
Dude, you’ve totally gone off the rails now. Saying random things about me for which you have no basis and contradict what I’ve written. Can’t help your ilk coz you seem mentally ill.
I’ve plentifully and very clearly spelled out both my position and the philosophical justifications underpinning them, and they are internally consistent. I have also acknowledged the suffering of women post-Roe and quantified the limited extent of it in practice.
Don’t come after me if you don’t care to read what I’ve written and engage in an honest discussion. Don’t talk generics and virtue signaling blabber. Be specific in challenging any position of mine, and first take the time to ascertain the position itself.
You are the quintessential example of what conservatives blame liberals for, why I long stopped identifying with the liberal label. Too shrill, not oriented in pragmatics, and caricaturing people with morally and intellectually honestly held belief systems.
Jesus Christ - bluh. You are just digging and digging.
You know if you admit how you actually feel the logical inconsistencies will be laughable.
You must be anti-abortion to own the libs (see your last paragraph) but you have to dance around the empirical implications of that stance.
When you admitting you are simply ok with mothers dying in childbirth because it is "natural," I kinda stopped listening to you. You have zero empathy for women. This comes from never having formed a bond with one (friendship or romance) and thus you resent them.
I strongly, strongly recommend counseling because you will have a life of misery (I assume you are late teen, early twenties from your writing style) if you continue down this path of blaming others for your problems.
So you noticed the high IQ, hah. EQ doesn’t mean very much, especially on an online forum, and was invented to make low IQ people like perhaps yourself feel good. Knock yourself out with personal attacks and dismissiveness. I’m
At any minute I’m sure you’ll start telling me how great of a show Rick and Morty is. I grew out of this phase in my teenage years when I realized adopting “smart” as a core personality trait rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Not everyone grows out of it.
Next up from the incel squad in this thread: feminism has been net-negative for society because women with more agency do not choose to date me.
Very clear that many posters are upset they do not get to have intimate relationships with women (Let it Rupp, Yawn, bluh).
These "incel" types love the fact that blanket abortion bans (especially those that have no exceptions for maternal health, rape, or incest) punish women and men who get to have sex.
No IVF, no sex, no abortions for women unless they want it with me.
It’s always funny and very clear that one has lost the debate when they start talking about things they couldn’t possibly know.
The US is right now an international laughing stock because of this. Except no-one is laughing. They feel sorry for American women living in poverty being forced into pregnancies they don't want, just so churches can sell babies to rich white couples.
Theres petitions in some countries to give adverse travel advice for women travelling to the United States, in case they have a miscarriage while there and are either denied medical treatment to prevent infection because there is still a foetal heart beat, or are criminalised.
Re-runs of the Handmaid's Tale are being broadcast in my country.
Anyone else think it's kind of weird how rabid liberals feel so motivated to change the names of mountains, because the name is associated with racism/slavery but also have a strong desire to fund Planned Parenthood, which was founded by a white supremacist whose plan was to keep the Black population in check through eugenics?
I always found that very weird, but what do I know, I'm just a bigot.
It’s called “Planned Parenthood” and not the “Margaret Sanger Eugenics Institute.” There’s a difference between patronizing an organization that may have been founded by a prejudicial person but has since gone on to do good and rejects the defects of its founder versus continuing to honor a deeply flawed person from history.
Very clear that many posters are upset they do not get to have intimate relationships with women (Let it Rupp, Yawn, bluh).
These "incel" types love the fact that blanket abortion bans (especially those that have no exceptions for maternal health, rape, or incest) punish women and men who get to have sex.
No IVF, no sex, no abortions for women unless they want it with me.
It’s always funny and very clear that one has lost the debate when they start talking about things they couldn’t possibly know.
Perhaps "very clear" is an overstatement.
Your positions, speech, and general tone are consistent with the boys/men I have known in my life who have not figured out how to form relationships with women yet.
It's pretty easy to ID these people - I am sticking with this assumption until proven otherwise.
So you noticed the high IQ, hah. EQ doesn’t mean very much, especially on an online forum, and was invented to make low IQ people like perhaps yourself feel good. Knock yourself out with personal attacks and dismissiveness. I’m
At any minute I’m sure you’ll start telling me how great of a show Rick and Morty is. I grew out of this phase in my teenage years when I realized adopting “smart” as a core personality trait rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Not everyone grows out of it.
Look, we agreed I’m smart, so let’s leave it at that and focus on the topic of the debate. You are now just pretzeling yourself into trying to come up with a witty comeback that doesn’t even make any sense.
It’s always funny and very clear that one has lost the debate when they start talking about things they couldn’t possibly know.
Perhaps "very clear" is an overstatement.
Your positions, speech, and general tone are consistent with the boys/men I have known in my life who have not figured out how to form relationships with women yet.
It's pretty easy to ID these people - I am sticking with this assumption until proven otherwise.
Nobody cares about your silly assumptions. You are incapable of intelligent debate.
Dude, I gave your obsessive non-sequitorious point the dismissiveness it deserved. To be honest, if you insist on perusing menses as badly as you seem to fetishize, you will invariantly get some on your face. People already told you that you have no next point to make after finding dead zygotes in period blood, yet you keep whatabouting on that front. I can only surmise you have some kind of a period blood fetish.
I’m not the one claiming that a zygote is a fully fledged human being. If it is, then wouldn’t you want to know if all these children are dying every month? If half of all newborns died during delivery, it would be a human tragedy without equal. There would be no limit to the resources we’d pour into stopping that.
But we don’t do that with zygotes because we all know these aren’t children dying.
Planned parenthood did implement some of the goals of Sanger early on. That’s why they targeted poor communities that were made of people of color.
The issue is that, multiple times in this topic and others, you have accused the United States as being the leader in oppression. If you believe that, based on your own assertions, it’s because of how the country was founded. You have to also hold that same standard to planned parenthood.
I can be logically consistent and say yes, the US and planned parenthood had some troublesome issues in their genesis but worked toward remedying those issues.
You, on the other hand, demonize the US but want to give planned parenthood a pass. Thus, you are intellectually inconsistent .
Sanger was concerned about poor communities of color being manipulated by religious zealots into having multitudes of children to "serve God" all the while being driven further into desperation and poverty with each child. Sanger wanted to give poor communities of color the same options of family planning (i.e. birth control, Sanger was against abortion) that wealthy families had.
Sanger was a eugenicist, but did not believe in using race as a basis for eugenics. Sanger, like many others at the time (including Alexander Graham Bell, Hellen Keller, Churchill, and WEB DuBois) believed that eugenics could be used to rid the human races of mental disabilities, birth defects and other genetic diseases. While their goals were on the surface benevolent, in practice, eugenics resulted in mass sterilization drives that targeted minorities.
I do not have the time nor am I in the mood to dig up racist quotes from Margaret Sanger. As a racist woman, M. Sanger wanted to reduce the global Black population. Many racist Democrats today feel the same. Your ability to dig up quotes from Blacks 100 years ago who had partial agreement with Sanger is irrelevant. I partially agree with 99% of the people. Partial agreement means nothing. Science is prevailing. Women do not have legal authority to kill a 2 plus pound person inside them. Just like no parent has the legal authority to kill a 20 pound 3 year old person in the care of an adult. Your side lost and will continue to lose. You can cry about on this site or you can proclaim to move to England with Billie Joe Armstrong.
At any minute I’m sure you’ll start telling me how great of a show Rick and Morty is. I grew out of this phase in my teenage years when I realized adopting “smart” as a core personality trait rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Not everyone grows out of it.
Look, we agreed I’m smart, so let’s leave it at that and focus on the topic of the debate. You are now just pretzeling yourself into trying to come up with a witty comeback that doesn’t even make any sense.
Ouch man... you are making this easier and easier.
There's not really a debate to be had here. I am happy to discuss whatever you feel is germane - I have many more years practical and theoretical experience with these subject matters.
However, you have firm beliefs that stem from your emotional and experiential naivete - in 5,10,15 years you will mature and this conversation will be very different. Right now, you have no desire to learn, merely to assert your correctness - that is not a discussion.
At any minute I’m sure you’ll start telling me how great of a show Rick and Morty is. I grew out of this phase in my teenage years when I realized adopting “smart” as a core personality trait rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Not everyone grows out of it.
Look, we agreed I’m smart, so let’s leave it at that and focus on the topic of the debate. You are now just pretzeling yourself into trying to come up with a witty comeback that doesn’t even make any sense.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/OBNLARS6BV7I3SXVX37C7DJ2I4.jpg)