Home | About | Donate

'Appalling' Comments by Justices Thomas and Alito Seen as Harbinger of New Wave of Attacks on Marriage Equality and Gay Rights

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/06/appalling-comments-justices-thomas-and-alito-seen-harbinger-new-wave-attacks

2 Likes

Hate on the Supreme Court will remain there until it is removed.

6 Likes

The SCOTUS has held way too much power in our system ever since John Marshall grabbed in the Marbury decision. It’s especially bad when the justices like Alito and Thomas don’t even bother with in pretense of attempting to interpret the Constitution. They base their decisions on their own person views alone.

3 Likes

SCOTUS reform badly needed. I’m all for adding justice to the court, putting in term limits (including on those currently on the court), but more importantly, limit what they can rule on.

Congress has the power to pass a law and include in it that the SCOTUS does not have review power over it. They should use it for things like M4All and the GND.

1 Like

‘First they came for the…’ (Pastor Niemoeller)
No one is safe under fascist rule…

5 Likes

I agree. Roe v Wade was a disastrous decision. Judges just made shit up outta nowhere. Those were the days of the liberal courts where the Court made laws on their own. Finally we’re getting to the point again of adjudicating laws passed rather than making their own.

2 Likes

For sure, Roe v Wade was a “disastrous” decision…for rapists and incestuous people, because it gave women a way to terminate pregnancy produced by their violent crimes.
It was disastrous for the kind of people who want to force women to be at the mercy of Nature as mere fetal chambers, with no right to privacy and body sovereignty, just like slaves.
Disastrous for black market abortionists.
Disastrous for people who believe that more and more unwanted children is a good thing.
Disastrous for those who think women should be punished for having sex.
Yup, a real disaster, all right.

9 Likes

You know nothing about the Constitution, then.

No, you can’t get away with your own “ma[king] shit up outta nowhere” about the Roe v. Wade decision. You have to provide some solid evidence with your comment for me to take seriously. Make a decent (detailed) argument that supports your opinion.

2 Likes

Where is the Right to Privacy in the Constitution? and if there is one, why is everyone demanding private medical records from the President?

What BullShit!!   The whole point of having the SCOTUS is for them to ensure that any laws passed by Congress are Constitutional.   I do agree that several of SCOTUS’ decisions seem to violate that mandate, especially when it comes to religion.  Per the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . "
(Wisely, IMHO, the Founding Fathers did not prohibit laws disrespecting religion . . . )

6 Likes

Ha! Two perverts and open prejudice on the SCOTUS, sign of the times. CONSERVATISM! Not to mention highly unqualified nincompoops sitting on the majority. One only has to look at the last 4 years to understand republicans are the party of unlawfulness.

3 Likes

The right to privacy was established by the Fourth Amendment“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

IMHO – and in accordance with many, many years of custom, it is NOT ‘unreasonable’ for The People to have true knowledge concerning the health of any individual who is seeking to become, or to continue, as an official in THEIR government, especially the highest office – that of the Presiduncy.  (Including that person’s financial health, BTW.)

5 Likes

For the details, check in with Thom Hartmann.

Just like those on the right fail to read the entire 2nd amendment, they seem to have little or no idea what the Treaty of Tripoli says. The right lives in a world of selective reality which has little to do with or intersect reality. In other words, they’re delusional.

2 Likes

Changes are needed to the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t have the power to undermine policies determined within the political process and shouldn’t be allowed to force the country to regress. Court packing, time limits, the whole thing needs to change. I see no logical reason, given the massive societal issues we have now, to just sit back and let these horrific people destroy the country because they emotionally attached themselves to some brain dead philosophy. I don’t expect the Democrats to do it, because they are worthless and are against doing tons to change anything, but it should happen.

3 Likes

Did you see decisions the courts made in the late 19th century regarding corporations? How about the decision made regarding the 2000 election? And why should anyone care what an extremely dated document like the constitution says anyway unless they thought critically if that document was something that made sense in the country we now live in? We need to update the thing to deal with today’s problems, not to stand in the damn way of solving our problems. Jefferson himself said that laws should change as society changes. Expecting society to deal with things facing society as people did long ago is similar to asking a person to wear the same clothes they did as a kid, something along those lines. The constitution isn’t written in the stars. The laws and the constitution should change as society changes, not lock us into failed ideas and ways of doing things that are ill suited to the challenges we now face and giving power to corporations that the overwhelming majority of the country opposes. We don’t live in a country at all like the country that existed in the late 18th century.

Besides anyway, these justices use such mindless, stupid reasons to analyze legal issues facing us today, like their “originalist” bullshit. I am a trained economist. Image the reaction if I went to a room of economist and asked them to allow me to assume that the economy was still an 18th century agrarian economy as part of my analysis. They wouldn’t take me seriously because it is illogical and absurd. I would have to use models and tools to analyze problems we are now facing, or maybe to make sense of past events. But, I couldn’t use models to justify policies now based on an analysis that we are still the same country, society and economy that we were in the late 18th century.

2 Likes

LOL! So, you are equating something like the NSA spying on people in violation of the constitution with the president voluntarily giving the public information about a major illness weeks before an election, an election that can give him four more years? No one is requiring him to hand over his record, they are pressuring him to and to be transparent because this could impact his health and his capacity to govern the country.

I love your framing too. Look at long term macroeconomic trends in this country, look at the concentration of wealth, of stock ownership, of property ownership, look at the massive power differentials in society between capital and labor, look at the highly protectionist intellectual property rights regimes in institutions like the WTO, look at the utter corruption of the political system (thanks in part to these very rotten assholes). Who thinks cementing that is a good thing? It isn’t just the ideological left opposed to that, the overwhelming majority of the country is. The Supreme Court needs to be radically reformed. It shouldn’t have the power to lock us in to what amounts to societal collapse. The “liberal” justices in the past supported some things which made us slightly more humane. Thank god I am not an awful person that comes up with some coffee house philosophy to justify undermining those things, especially when we are already a brutal society in many ways relative to other developed countries.

2 Likes

When no civil damage is being done no civil law is necessary.

They are REGRESSIVES, not merely conservatives. They want to return to the 14th century.

6 Likes