Thomas tears into abortion precedent, says Roe v. Wade should fall in dissent on Louisiana case

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
The majority ruled against the Louisiana law because the court had already ruled against such laws in the state of Texas. As a true conservative, Roberts recognizes the value in precedent. Established legal regimes should not be changed on mere political whims.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,258
5,042
Native Land
✟321,432.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Care about living babies, children and grownup's . More then an unborn clump of cells . Nobody should care more about a clump cells, than people all ready born. It's just fake tears.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Innsmuthbride
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Too bad he's in the minority, otherwise his opinion might matter. Maybe if Donald did a better job appointing Supreme Court justices, but looks like another in a long list of failures on his part. People who care about this subject might want to think about voting in someone more aligned with their views.

Trump is a conman who, like all conmen, shamelessly overpromises.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The majority ruled against the Louisiana law because the court had already ruled against such laws in the state of Texas. As a true conservative, Roberts recognizes the value in precedent. Established legal regimes should not be changed on mere political whims.

Good thing he doesn't get the opportunity to uphold the precedent set by the Dred Scott decision.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Good thing he doesn't get the opportunity to uphold the precedent set by the Dred Scott decision.

The Thirteenth Amendment rendered that decision moot.

I'd be surprised if he didn't know that; it was in all the papers...
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Thirteenth Amendment rendered that decision moot.

I'd be surprised if he didn't know that; it was in all the papers...


As I said he won' t get the opportunity to reaffirm the precedent. However if the Citizen's United decision is looked at again he can reaffirm that and I am sure all those that hail his love of precedent on Roe will be right there applauding him again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,436
4,859
38
Midwest
✟261,806.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
As I said he won' t get the opportunity to reaffirm the precedent. However if the Citizen's United decision is looked at again he can reaffirm that and I am sure all those that hail his love of precedent on Roe will be right there applauding him again.

I don’t think it was on this website but I did opine that Roberts did the right thing for the wrong reason and while I agree with the ruling his opinion left a bitter taste in my mouth for the very reason you pointed out. His argument taken to its logical conclusion would declare the Supreme Court infallible.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
As I said he won' t get the opportunity to reaffirm the precedent.

That darn Constitution.

However if the Citizen's United decision is looked at again he can reaffirm that and I am sure all those that hail his love of precedent on Roe will be right there applauding him again.

Good move; choosing another court case. Now all you have to do is realize that we like upholding good precedents, not abominable ones like Scott.

Citizens United is a tricky one -- the implications are abominable and the justices were naive, but the law is solidly on their side: Donating money is a form of speech. It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment to fix that one.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
His argument taken to its logical conclusion would declare the Supreme Court infallible.
I'm beginning to think (not because of your post, per se) that taking things to their logical conclusion is the wrong thing to do. For one, it is very akin to a slippery slope fallacy. For two, in the case of SCOTUS, it can and has over-turned itself. One needs a compelling reason for doing so.

What Roberts has done is say that A) we just made this decision, B) the arguments haven't changed -- no new information is added in this case, and C) changing that decision just because we can (the composition of the court has changed) would be wrong.

Roberts doing anything else would have made the court a tool of political ideologies.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
That darn Constitution.



Good move; choosing another court case. Now all you have to do is realize that we like upholding good precedents, not abominable ones like Scott.

Citizens United is a tricky one -- the implications are abominable and the justices were naive, but the law is solidly on their side: Donating money is a form of speech. It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment to fix that one.
Prima facie, I think the right decision is that corporations aren't people and don't get the same rights as an individual human.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Prima facie, I think the right decision is that corporations aren't people and don't get the same rights as an individual human.

Prima facie, I think the right decision is that the ruling only applies to public, transparent donations. The purpose of speech -- in any form -- is to be heard; any attempt to conceal the donations indicates that the intention was never for it to be construed as speech.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
Prima facie, I think the right decision is that the ruling only applies to public, transparent donations. The purpose of speech -- in any form -- is to be heard; any attempt to conceal the donations indicates that the intention was never for it to be construed as speech.
I'd buy that, too. But, I still think that considering corporations people doesn't work. Yours might fly better than mine, though.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Good thing he doesn't get the opportunity to uphold the precedent set by the Dred Scott decision.

If this case involved presenting a better argument, that would be one thing, but the Court was presented with the same rehashed arguments.
 
Upvote 0