Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Sam (I am Green Eggs and Ham) Alito reversed the holding in Marbury v. Madison, writing "after a careful reading and re-reading of the constitution, and viewing several you tube videos on the matter, we cannot find the right to judicial review and precedent in the Constitution". After declaring the value of precedent "limited based on the political leanings of the justices in the majority" the court, first initially and expressly over ruled Roe v Wade "we find no right to an abortion in the constitution" and in a concurrence by Justice Thomas, Thomas wrote "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, no right to buy contraception, no right to same sex marriage, no right to sex, no right to pizza, no right to the internet or to drive a Tesla or bet on Football and only a limited right to purchase and view pornography" after which Thomas wrote in parenthesis (hehehe).
Earlier in the week the court found no right to not wear a gun in public in New York, upholding a law requiring "every free white man" to carry a firearm in public."
'Justice Barrett wrote "Guns and gun rights are mentioned in the constitution. There's an amendment in there somewhere on guns for gosh sakes. There is no amendment on women and women's rights. If that right there doesn't tell you all y'all need to know about guns, abortions and womens, then nothing does. Geeze. "
In a footnote, Judge Alito wrote "we fully expect challenges to the right for women to vote, the right to an integrated education, and to reaffirm in the strongest possible terms the decisions in Korematsu and Plessy v. Ferguson. When this country was founded, women did not vote, blacks were slaves, and they were lucky to have a separate but equal status. We now adopt those founding principles of this great nation and caution courts against liberal judges ruling on an 'evolving moral standard.' There is nothing in the constitution that allows this country to have evolving moral standards and it is the duty of this and every court to return this country to the standards of the late 1700s. We expect plantations, and slavery, and the imposition of the death penalty for a wide range of cases. And the sooner this happens the better."
In case you've been in trial or living on a farm in Montana with no wifi (heaven) the Supreme Court today overruled Roe v. Wade, and Justice Thomas wrote in a concurrence that he saw no reason not to overturn similar rulings on same sex marriage, the right to adult consensual sexual relations outside of marriage, and the right to contraception. We are NOT making this up. You wanted Trump Judges, you got em!
“[A]ll abortions are illegal in South Dakota ‘unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.'"
ReplyDelete- The one woman legislator
Don’t stop here. Retroactive prosecution for all women who got an abortion. It’s time to make them pay. And enact min mans for abortion violations. At least 25 years ! Lock up anyone who has Sex outside of the holy marriage.
ReplyDeleteThis was all preventable. You can blame former and late Senator Harry Reid for the result. There was a time prior to 2013 when every federal judge needed 60 votes to get confirmed or at least survive a vote to invoke cloture (i.e., Roberts, Alito, Sotomayer and Kagan). In 2014, Reid, feeling invincible and believing the Dems would control the WH forever, "nuked" the filibuster for district and circuit court judges thus allowing many Obama appointess to get confirmed. The theory was that Hillary would cruise to election in '16 and the Republicans would be helpless to stop her presumably liberal nominees to the high court. Then . . . OOPS!! The Republicans win the senate. McConnell refuses to give Garland a vote and his long shot bet pays off as Trump marches into the WH. Had Reid not acted the way he did, Trump would never have nominated Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett as they would have been filibustered. Thanks to Reid, that option was now unavailable. There is an affirmative action case to be argued in October. The entire affirmative action/deversity/equity industrial complex will be obliterated 6-3. Thanks to Reid, the Federalist Society now controls the Supreme Court. Not saying it is a good thing but Republicans should name the Supreme Court building after Harry Reid.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion is a slippery slope in an already divided political climate. Regardless of someone’s political party or someone’s view on abortion, anyone who has respect for the law has to be concerned with this opinion.
ReplyDeleteRoe v. Wade was a bad political decision without legal basis or support. The SCOTUS finally recognized it today as it should have in Casey had the late Justice Kenedy not voted politically to keep it. Now, let the battles begin in the states' legislatures.
ReplyDeleteJustice Thomas was appointed by Trump?
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly a lot of the people who are most affected by todays ruling stayed home on Election Day 2016 or voted for the Green Party lady because they thought Hillary had been mean to Bernie or was too swampy. Enjoy your consequences. In fact, stay home again this year and complain about the consequences later.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think Mitch wouldn’t have nuked the filibuster? Can’t remember the last time SCOTUS actually took away a constitutional right. And not for nothing but it went out of its way to ban all abortions instead of focusing on the issue before them. Whatever happened to this matter is not before us?
ReplyDeleteDon’t you think somebody should remind Clarence that interracial marriage is also a not mentioned in the constitution and is a ““new” right invented by progressive, legislating justices?
ReplyDeleteDeclare Loving unconstitutional? Would Clarence’s head explode?
DeleteI do agree with the notion that Loving is not a substantive due process case and thus is an equal protection case. Because of that, it is on different footing from the penumbra style of cases.
ReplyDeleteBut Lawrence was decided on shaky grounds in that it wanted to embrace substantive due process over equal protection. By doing so, the justices avoided the hard call of indicating that laws singing out gays express both a desire to harm and a moral disapproval - both of which need to be addressed under equal protection of the laws. As O'Connor writes in her concurrence:
"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be 'drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.'"