Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Now Gay Marriages and Contraceptives are being reviewed by scotus

babs23r

babs23r

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
739
Just read that gay marriages as well as contraception will be under review by the scotus.
What is going on?
 
nothing yet as they are not under review.
If they were more than likely Roberts would find grounds to avoid ruling against them and pull another in to make it 5-4 to let it stand as it is now.
 
And POLITICS as well!!
 
What happened to a separation between Church and State?
 
Ibrakeforpossums said:
On our way to being a 3rd world country.
Click to expand...

Too late. We are already there with today's decision and if truth be told long before that. :(
Worse than some third world countries actually.
 
Karl_K said:
nothing yet as they are not under review.
If they were more than likely Roberts would find grounds to avoid ruling against them and pull another in to make it 5-4 to let it stand as it is now.
Click to expand...

Oh please @Karl_K, How many times had we heard nothing would really be would done with overturning abortion…. and yet here we are today. Do you not remember the Kavanaugh and Goursh hearings? They are f#$king liars. I hope Kavanaugh and Goursh rot in hell.

Clarence Thomas said today that contraception and gay marriage should be revisited. It’s crystal clear what their intent is.
 
Karl_K said:
nothing yet as they are not under review.
If they were more than likely Roberts would find grounds to avoid ruling against them and pull another in to make it 5-4 to let it stand as it is now.
Click to expand...

Its really not Roberts' court. Who do you think he would likely pull in?
 
Demon said:
Its really not Roberts' court. Who do you think he would likely pull in?
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh or Goursh most likely.
They have joined him in other cases.
 
Of course, as I've said before. It won't stop there.
No one is immune.
We need to call out what is happening and be specific as to who is to blame if America has any hope of survival.
The true persecution has begun.

Under his Eye.
 
Karl_K said:
Kavanaugh or Goursh most likely.
They have joined him in other cases.
Click to expand...

I would bet they wouldn't join him on these.

And just wait to see what congress does, if it falls into the wrong hands.
 
Last edited:
We got married a few weeks ago.
Could they un-marry us - or would any change affect only the future?
We're worried.
 
Calliecake said:
Clarence Thomas said today that contraception and gay marriage should be revisited. It’s crystal clear what their intent is.
Click to expand...
That is not however the language of the main ruling and Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion:
"First is the question of how this decision will affect other
precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar-
riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecti-
cut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438
(1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Oberge-
fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the
Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-
ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast
doubt on those precedents."
 
Karl_K said:
That is not however the language of the main ruling and Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion:
"First is the question of how this decision will affect other
precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar-
riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecti-
cut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438
(1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Oberge-
fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the
Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-
ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast
doubt on those precedents."
Click to expand...

This Kavanaugh? Who wouldn't trust him?

www.mainepublic.org

After telling Susan Collins that Roe was ‘settled law,’ Brett Kavanaugh calls it ‘wrongly decided’

The Dobbs vs. Jackson decision drags Maine’s senior U.S. senator back into the spotlight as Collins, one of the few Republicans to publicly support abortion rights, was a key vote to confirm Kavanaugh and cited in part his reassurance that he viewed Roe v. Wade as an important precedent.
www.mainepublic.org www.mainepublic.org
 

NYT​

Here’s what the justices in the majority opinion said about Roe during their confirmation hearings.​

Charlie Savage
June 24, 2022,

Charlie Savage

20SCOTUS-ABORTION-GRID-OF-5-articleLarge.jpg


"
The decision by the conservative majority to end the constitutional right to abortion — overturning landmark rulings like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — has cast a renewed spotlight on what they said on the topic during their confirmation hearings.
Following the standard playbook of most nominees, they all avoided directly stating how they would rule in either case, typically sticking to expressing their belief in the importance of precedent, the legal doctrine of “stare decisis.”
Here is a sampling:

Amy Coney Barrett, 2020​

Pressed on whether she would vote to overturn decisions protecting abortion rights, Judge Barrett gave no hint of how she might rule.



“What I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis, that if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors,” she said during her confirmation hearing in October 2020. “I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”

Brett Kavanaugh, 2018​

Judge Kavanaugh, questioned repeatedly about how he would rule on Roe, declined to directly answer whether the decision was “correct law.”
Roe v. Wade “is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. But then Planned — and this is the point that I want to make that I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors,” he said in 2018. “So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”

Neil Gorsuch, 2017​

Judge Gorsuch, President Donald J. Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, refused to say how he would rule on abortion.
“Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered,” he told senators in March 2017. “It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

​

He added, “For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal. It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 2006​

During his confirmation hearing in January 2006, Mr. Alito said he would approach the issue of abortion with an open mind.
“Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time,” he said.
But he stopped short of calling the landmark ruling settled law.
“If settled means it can’t be re-examined, then that’s one thing,” he told senators on the Judiciary Committee. “If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I’ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.”
He added, “It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels.”

Clarence Thomas, 1991​

Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 1991, Judge Thomas sidestepped declaring his views on abortion and declined to state whether Roe had been properly decided.
“The Supreme Court, of course, in the case of Roe v. Wade has found an interest in the woman’s right to — as a fundamental interest a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy,” he said. “I do not think that at this time that I could maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary and comment on that specific case.”
“Senator, your question to me was did I debate the contents of Roe v. Wade, the outcome in Roe v. Wade, do I have this day an opinion, a personal opinion, on the outcome in Roe v. Wade,” he added, “and my answer to you is that I do not.”
Correction:
June 24, 2022
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the number of justices who signed onto the majority opinion. It was five, not six.

"
 
@Karl_K, My comment was about kavanaugh and Goursh lying under oath regarding abortion. I should have been clear in my response. Justices lied under oath regarding Roe. I will never believe another thing that comes out of their mouths. They are disgusting pigs. I hope they rot in hell.
 
kenny said:
We got married a few weeks ago.
Could they un-marry us - or would any change affect only the future?
We're worried.
Click to expand...
You should be.
Your very existence is sin under the auspice of Theocratic rule. Add in their state's rights angle you would never be afforded the freedom of movement in your own country ever again. In the end, none of us would for one 'sin' or another. It is the stripping of sovereignty and citizenship for every American.
www.getreligion.org

GetReligion

Get Religion is a national and global journalism site focusing on how the mainstream press covers religion news in politics, entertainment, business and sports.
www.getreligion.org www.getreligion.org

Karl_K said:
That is not however the language of the main ruling and Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion:
"First is the question of how this decision will affect other
precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar-
riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecti-
cut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438
(1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Oberge-
fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the
Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-
ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast
doubt on those precedents."
Click to expand...
That's exactly what this is in effect and nothing else.
Slavery was a supposed 'state's rights' issue too, they tried to say. Racism as sanctioned by god. We know how that shakes out.

We fought a war over it.
 
kenny said:
We got married a few weeks ago.
Could they un-marry us - or would any change affect only the future?
We're worried.
Click to expand...

I am worried too. I would talk to an attorney to make sure you have each other covered for medical decisions/end of life decisions/estate issues etc and of course any kids you have or intend to have.
I mean, Prop 8 left married same-sex couples technically still married, (I think) if they married before it passed.... but it looks like with this court it's a whole new ball of wax.
All bets are off I suspect.
 
Barkingatstrangers said:
I am worried too. I would talk to an attorney to make sure you have each other covered for medical decisions/end of life decisions/estate issues etc and of course any kids you have or intend to have.
I mean, Prop 8 left married same-sex couples technically still married, (I think) if they married before it passed.... but it looks like with this court it's a whole new ball of wax.
All bets are off I suspect.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
kenny said:
Could they un-marry us - or would any change affect only the future?
We're worried.
Click to expand...

If the decision follows the Roe v Wade precedent, states would decide. Likely the same states that had trigger laws on the books to immediately enact today to make abortion illegal would do the same for same sex marriage. California would protect your rights. So would Oregon so if Cali lets you down, move up here.
 
kenny said:
We got married a few weeks ago.
Could they un-marry us - or would any change affect only the future?
We're worried.
Click to expand...

my country recognizes your marrage as does many others Kenny
i feel very sad for all the American gay married people today - and the engaged ones also

i don't see why it should be anyone elses bussiness, who is married to who or who loves who (of legal age)
IMHO its no bussiness of the government
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top