Wow, dense read.
I don’t see anywhere Thomas mentions Loving v. Virginia and how this is different, though.
His opinion explains how the supposed “right to abortion” has nothing to do with the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment because, as Clarence puts it, “ The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.”
As you can see in the Loving v. Virginia wiki I posted above, the right to interracial marriage was decided upon because of the Due Process Clause from the 14th amendment. So, yea… that begs the question, does Thomas believe he has a right to marry a white woman?
Of course he doesn’t care though, it won’t ever effect him and he’ll probably be dead by the time interracial marriage ever becomes prohibited again.
Best that I can describe, he is saying it is not enumerated by the constitution. That is my take.
Right, and I’m trying to allow the laws to be what they are regardless of my opinion. But it seems like it one is invalid, the other must be too. For at least some of the reasons he describes (I admit I’d have to read it again to really understand the differences in his numerous reasons. )
Good luck finding an unbiased legal scholar to break it down.
Then people like Samuel Jackson with his Uncle Tom reference is just jaw dropping from the left. Then of course, people take that and run with it.
According to the new ruling, abortion is not a right enumerated by the constitution. Which means decisions may also go back to the states such as interracial marriage and others.
Or, the states can come together and change the constitution or Congress can pass a law. Two laws that could easily be passed and lifted from the “judicial decision” is gay marriage and interracial marriage.
This would be a more sound protection than a court ruling (which could be overruled depending on the political make-up of the bench).
Yea that actually makes sense.