The Lib Narrative About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting Took Another Brutal Hit
Anti-ICE Protesters Try to Shame an Agent — It Backfires Spectacularly
For the Trans Activist Class, It’s All About Them
Ilhan Omar Claims ICE Isn’t Arresting Criminals. Here's Proof That She's Lying.
Check Out President Trump's 'Appropriate and Unambiguous' Response to Heckler
The Prime of Tough-Guy Progressivism
'The Constitution of a Deity' RFK Jr. on President Trump's Diet
Father-in-Law of Renee Good Refuses to Blame ICE, Urges Americans to Turn to...
Iranian State Media Airs a Direct Assassination Threat Against President Trump
US Halts Immigrant Visas From 75 Countries Over Welfare Abuse Concerns
Living Through Iran’s Slaughter: One Iranian Woman Describes the Horror and Hope Under...
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey Shrugs Off Assaults on ICE Agents: They Are Standing...
Tricia McLaughlin Defends ICE's Visible Presence
Time to Crack Down on Fraud
DC Rapper 'Taliban Glizzy' Sentenced to Over 18 Years for Multi-State Jewelry Heists
Tipsheet

Justice Thomas Comes Out Swinging in Solo Concurring Opinion

Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

In a solo concurring opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should reconsider other opinions. 

Advertisement

Specifically, the conservative justice pointed to Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, which concern contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

“The Court’s abortion cases are unique…and no party has asked us to decide ‘whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” he wrote. “Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

“For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he continued. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’…we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents…” 

The 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut protected the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. The high court ruled 7-2 in Griswold.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Lawrence v. Texas that a Texas law which made it a crime for two people of the same sex to engage in intimate consensual sexual conduct violated the Due Process clause of the Constitution, invalidating sodomy laws nationwide.

And 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges held that the right for same-sex couples to marry is guaranteed under both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 5-4 ruling legalized same-sex marriage all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and all of the United States’ territories. (NY1)

Advertisement

Related:

CLARENCE THOMAS

Thomas added: “After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Thomas said other questions would first need to be considered, such as “whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights.”

Editor's Note: This post has been updated.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement