This City Councilman Turned a $50K Deal Into a Personal Payday. Now He's...
Meet the Conservative Outsider Who Wants to Bring Common Sense Back to His...
How This Small-Town Police Force Became a 'Criminal Organization'
Iranian Regime's Latest Move Shows How Desperate It Has Become
CBS News Tried to Recalibrate Detention Stats — DHS Was Having None of...
If 'The Only Thing More Powerful Than Hate Is Love' Democrats Missed the...
Elites Did Their Part to Fight Global Warming by Flying Dozens of Private...
Historic: U.S. Marks Ninth Month With Zero Releases at the Border
Man Who Pushed Propaganda About a Young Gazan Boy Slaughtered By The IDF...
Harry Sisson Refuses to House Illegals in His Home, And Claims ICE Agent...
Critics Blast Katie Porter's Pre Super Bowl X Post As She Tries to...
Immigration Win: Federal Court Sides With Trump Admin on TPS Terminations for Multiple...
Federal Judge Blocks California Effort to Demask ICE Agents
Jasmine Crockett Might Be Running the Most Incompetent Campaign in History
WaPo Claims That Bad Bunny's Profane Performance Represented 'Wholesome Family Values'
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