Dems' Rejoicing Over the Supreme Court Ruling on Trump's Tariffs Got Wrecked...by CNN?
'Out of Nowhere' Canadians Are Now Poorer Than Alabamians. The Reactions Have Been...
Student ‘ICE Out’ Protests Go Viral Across US – Now Schools are Taking...
Here's Why the US Is Losing Farms at an Alarming Rate
This State Is Getting Closer to Eliminating Property Taxes
‘Privileged, White, and Well-Off’? Canada’s MAiD Program Just Got Even More Disturbing
Feds Indict Six More in Venezuelan Gang's High-Tech ATM Heist – Total Hits...
Michigan Auto Dealer Management Firm Pays $1.5M to Settle PPP Fraud Claims
Here's How Mamdani's Snow Shoveling Program Is Reveals the Leftist Lie on Voter...
Toxic Chemical Poured on Trump-Kennedy Center Ice Rink, Performance Canceled
Lawmakers Probe Potomac River Sewage Spill
Ukrainian Man Ran 'Upworksell.com' to Sell Stolen Identities for Overseas IT Workers, Cour...
The DOJ Has Canned the Most Liberal Immigration Judge in America
Fake Immigration Law Firm Busted in Brooklyn Federal Indictment
It's True: Gavin Newsom's California Government Has Paid Protestors Over $100 Million
Tipsheet

Justice Thomas Comes Out Swinging in Solo Concurring Opinion

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