In striking down Roe v. Wade today, as was expected, the Supreme Court voted 6–3. Chief Justice Roberts did not sign on to the majority decision, though he voted with the majority on the specifics of the Dobbs case.
Justice Clarence Thomas piled on by filing a concurrence, which contained this statement:
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
Griswold: the right to contraception. Lawrence: removing anti-sodomy laws from the books across the country (that is, making consensual sex between adults legal). Obergefell: marriage equality.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice that Thomas didn't mention Loving v. Virginia. Hmm, I wonder why that is, given that it fits squarely within the same tradition of substantive due process as the other three cases he does include?
This cartoon, by Michael de Adder of the Washington Post supplies a visual of the Supreme Court's intended future in the U.S.:
My only argument with the cartoon is the order of the dominoes. I don't think they'll go after contraception first, except maybe by nibbling at the edges of it (what's defined as contraception vs. what's an "abortion" in the eyes of the far-right).
The current anti-trans witch hunt and all of the "groomer" language makes it clear who's going to be first.
___
Elie Mystal was transcendently angry and on point tonight at the end of Joy Ann Reid's show on MSNBC. I couldn't help thinking of his book Allow Me to Retort, and particularly his recommendation for how the Supreme Court should be changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment