Dusting off Loving vs Virginia

[82hoosier]

In an effort to circumvent the 1924 Virginia Act To Preserve Racial Integrity, Mildred and Richard Loving traveled from their Virginia home to Washington DC to get married. Five weeks later, upon returning to their home in Virginia the couple were arrested and each sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. The sentence was suspended when they agreed to leave the state of Virginia for a period of not less than 25 years. In 1963 the Lovings, now living in Washington DC, appealed to Bobby Kennedy who referred the couple to the ACLU to take up their case and in 1967 the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 to overturn their conviction. The losing argument was that interracial marriages should be treated like incest and polygamy.
And now Clarence Thomas is talking about resurrecting his personal view of Catholicism, questioning the moral integrity and constitutionality of same-sex marriages. What an evil son of a bitch.
Another profiles in courage story of the supermajority that the GOP stacked the Supreme Court with in their successful effort to overturn Roe versus Wade.

 

[82hoosier]

In an effort to circumvent the 1924 Virginia Act To Preserve Racial Integrity, Mildred and Richard Loving traveled from their Virginia home to Washington DC to get married. Five weeks later, upon returning to their home in Virginia the couple were arrested and each sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. The sentence was suspended when they agreed to leave the state of Virginia for a period of not less than 25 years. In 1963 the Lovings, now living in Washington DC, appealed to Bobby Kennedy who referred the couple to the ACLU to take up their case and in 1967 the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 to overturn their conviction. The losing argument was that interracial marriages should be treated like incest and polygamy.
And now Clarence Thomas is talking about resurrecting his personal view of Christianity, questioning the moral integrity and constitutionality of same-sex marriages. What an evil son of a bitch.
Another profiles in courage story of the supermajority that the GOP stacked the Supreme Court with in their successful effort to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Richard Loving was deemed white because he was Caucasian with not more than 1/16 Indian blood. But Mildred had American Indian blood and that pesky negro blood. Democracy truly is a fragile experiment.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Obviously Thomas would make up some crazy reason why Loving is different than Obergefell, but he won't have to. I doubt anyone would pass a law contrary to Loving to be challenged.

 

[TMFT]

Obviously Thomas would make up some crazy reason why Loving is different than Obergefell, but he won't have to. I doubt anyone would pass a law contrary to Loving to be challenged.

It would almost take a super liberal locality to create it just so it would be challenged. But at the end of the day, SCOTUS wouldn’t grant cert to that. Gay marriage and sodomy laws are next but I doubt they have the balls to go after contraceptives or interracial marriage.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It would almost take a super liberal locality to create it just so it would be challenged. But at the end of the day, SCOTUS wouldn’t grant cert to that. Gay marriage and sodomy laws are next but I doubt they have the balls to go after contraceptives or interracial marriage.

I would like any of those who love Thomas' definition of rights to explain why Loving is good law and Obergefell isn't.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would like any of those who love Thomas' definition of rights to explain why Loving is good law and Obergefell isn't.

This thread is hilarious. Justice Thomas overruling Loving v. Virginia? ROTFLMAO. I shouldn't read this board with a mouth full of coffee. I’m an old man and could die.

 

[TMFT]

This thread is hilarious. Justice Thomas overruling Loving v. Virginia? ROTFLMAO. I shouldn't read this board with a mouth full of coffee. I’m an old man and could die.

No one is saying that he’d ban his own marriage, they’re questioning the reasoning why Obergfell should go but Loving is fine.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No one is saying that he’d ban his own marriage, they’re questioning the reasoning why Obergfell should go but Loving is fine.

Equal protection is a slam dunk in both cases.

I have never liked the due process reasons for Loving because it leaves too many open questions about what personal liberty really means. We have many democrats claiming that general self-defense is not a fundamental part of personal liberty. I have a general strong belief that being a human being carries with it many inalienable and fundamental rights. But i also recognize that is subordinate to strong and clear public interest. The Dems and GOP have fundamental differences about the public interest. I don’t agree with Thomas about this.

 

[TMFT]

Equal protection is a slam dunk in both cases.

I have never liked the due process reasons for Loving because it leaves too many open questions about what personal liberty really means. We have many democrats claiming that general self-defense is not a fundamental part of personal liberty. I have a general strong belief that being a human being carries with it many inalienable and fundamental rights. But i also recognize that is subordinate to strong and clear public interest. The Dems and GOP have fundamental differences about the public interest. I don’t agree with Thomas about this.

Obergfell was a 5-4 decision. Far from a slam dunk if the court actually wants to revisit it considering the current composition.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Obergfell was a 5-4 decision. Far from a slam dunk if the court actually wants to revisit it considering the current composition.

Gorsuch will support both.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I have a general strong belief that being a human being carries with it many inalienable and fundamental rights. But i also recognize that is subordinate to strong and clear public interest.

I would say the state needs to prove a "strong and clear public interest". Which I do not think they can do in most marriage cases (age, duress, mental incompetence maybe being 3).

I do not think the state can in most gun cases. Clearly it can in owning a machine gun, or a stinger. But to me it cannot in a standard pistol or hunting rifle. I think it can on modern military weapons rebranded for civilian use, but clearly 41% of America disagrees.

Just talking logic, if Loving is law Obergefell must be. There is no logical reason for that not to be true.

 

[Sope Creek]

Obergfell was a 5-4 decision. Far from a slam dunk if the court actually wants to revisit it considering the current composition.

Yeah, well Roe was a 7-2 decision with the majority opinion written by a justice appointed by a Republican.

No decision is safe. With this court, I think the Commerce Clause decisions could be at significant risk.

 

[TMFT]

Gorsuch will support both.

So he’s taking kennedy’s spot in the majority.

Where do Kavanaugh & Coney-Barrett come down?

because the other two changes are Scalia & Ginsburg.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So he’s taking kennedy’s spot in the majority.

Where do Kavanaugh & Coney-Barrett come down?

because the other two changes are Scalia & Ginsburg.

Gorsuch is not taking Kennedy’s spot. . Gorsuch’ is a spot.

I think Kavanaugh is closer to Kennedy.

I don’t have a good read on Barrett.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yeah, well Roe was a 7-2 decision with the majority opinion written by a justice appointed by a Republican.

No decision is safe. With this court, I think the Commerce Clause decisions could be at significant risk.

Lol.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would say the state needs to prove a "strong and clear public interest". Which I do not think they can do in most marriage cases (age, duress, mental incompetence maybe being 3).

Actually it’s the opposite. The challengers to a statute that restricts liberty must prove lack of strong and clear public interest. The presumption is in favor of the government action.

Biden is correct when he says constitutional rights in the BOR are not absolute. There will always be tension between individual liberty and common interest and common good. That’s why we have politics.. What is scary now is the alignment of left-wing political views in government, education, business, media, and tech. Conformity and group think is the objective. Not good.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Actually it’s the opposite. The challengers to a statute that restricts liberty must prove lack of strong and clear public interest. The presumption is in favor of the government action.

So you think we fought a revolution where most of the participants wrote that freedom derives from nature did so with the idea that said freedoms have to show a lack of clear public interest. Anything from Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Adams on this?

 

[Bill4411]

Actually it’s the opposite. The challengers to a statute that restricts liberty must prove lack of strong and clear public interest. The presumption is in favor of the government action.

Biden is correct when he says constitutional rights in the BOR are not absolute. There will always be tension between individual liberty and common interest and common good. That’s why we have politics.. What is scary now is the alignment of left-wing political views in government, education, business, media, and tech. Conformity and group think is the objective. Not good.

Only left-wing views are a concern? Love them proud boys.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Only left-wing views are a concern? Love them proud boys.

Yep. The next time somebody is kicked off a social media platform or subject to an FBI terrorism investigation for criticizing the Proud Boys, get back to me.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

In an effort to circumvent the 1924 Virginia Act To Preserve Racial Integrity, Mildred and Richard Loving traveled from their Virginia home to Washington DC to get married. Five weeks later, upon returning to their home in Virginia the couple were arrested and each sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. The sentence was suspended when they agreed to leave the state of Virginia for a period of not less than 25 years. In 1963 the Lovings, now living in Washington DC, appealed to Bobby Kennedy who referred the couple to the ACLU to take up their case and in 1967 the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 to overturn their conviction. The losing argument was that interracial marriages should be treated like incest and polygamy.
And now Clarence Thomas is talking about resurrecting his personal view of Catholicism, questioning the moral integrity and constitutionality of same-sex marriages. What an evil son of a bitch.
Another profiles in courage story of the supermajority that the GOP stacked the Supreme Court with in their successful effort to overturn Roe versus Wade.

You misunderstand the purpose and effect of a concurring opinion.

And apparently you have not read the actual majority decision, which explains exactly why the internet claims about the rights relating to marriage and contraception are legally unfounded, and why those rights, and the legal doctrine(s) which were used to establish/protect them, are (allegedly) different from the claimed right to abortion.

I understand why Alito used so many words, but so far, I’d estimate less than 5% of protestors on either side have read them.

Hands up. Don’t abort.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You misunderstand the purpose and effect of a concurring opinion.

And apparently you have not read the actual majority decision, which explains exactly why the internet claims about the rights relating to marriage and contraception are legally unfounded, and why those rights, and the legal doctrine(s) which were used to establish/protect them, are (allegedly) different from the claimed right to abortion.

I understand why Alito used so many words, but so far, I’d estimate less than 5% of protestors on either side have read them.

Hands up. Don’t abort.

Those justices are under 0 legal obligation to pay attention to what they wrote in that opinion. If a challenge to Obergefell arises they are completely free to rule against upholding since we know precedent carries a limited weight.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Those justices are under 0 legal obligation to pay attention to what they wrote in that opinion. If a challenge to Obergefell arises they are completely free to rule against upholding since we know precedent carries a limited weight.

Alito gave stare decisis a lot of attention. He didn’t just ignore prior rulings on a whim.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Alito gave stare decisis a lot of attention. He didn’t just ignore prior rulings on a whim.

Have you read Gorsuch on McGirt? He wrote the previously ruling he was sure would be the precedent for this one and seemed VERY angry they blew it off.

 

[Sope Creek]

Alito gave stare decisis a lot of attention. He didn’t just ignore prior rulings on a whim.

The operative phrase being "on a whim". So you're saying he did ignore prior rulings? Just not on a "whim"?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The operative phrase being "on a whim". So you're saying he did ignore prior rulings? Just not on a "whim"?

No. He spent pages and pages addressing stare decisis factors … and then ruled on a whim

 

[Sope Creek]

No. He spent pages and pages addressing stare decisis factors … and then ruled on a whim

So you're saying he ignored prior decisions when he ruled . . . on a whim.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

So you're saying he ignored prior decisions when he ruled . . . on a whim.

No. He explained why those decisions were either irrelevant or otherwise inapplicable - and ruled. You know, like judges do.

 

[Stuffshot]

In an effort to circumvent the 1924 Virginia Act To Preserve Racial Integrity, Mildred and Richard Loving traveled from their Virginia home to Washington DC to get married. Five weeks later, upon returning to their home in Virginia the couple were arrested and each sentenced to one year in the penitentiary. The sentence was suspended when they agreed to leave the state of Virginia for a period of not less than 25 years. In 1963 the Lovings, now living in Washington DC, appealed to Bobby Kennedy who referred the couple to the ACLU to take up their case and in 1967 the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 to overturn their conviction. The losing argument was that interracial marriages should be treated like incest and polygamy.
And now Clarence Thomas is talking about resurrecting his personal view of Catholicism, questioning the moral integrity and constitutionality of same-sex marriages. What an evil son of a bitch.
Another profiles in courage story of the supermajority that the GOP stacked the Supreme Court with in their successful effort to overturn Roe versus Wade.

I think Thomas and Ginnie are residents of Virginia. Has that 1924 Virginia statute been repealed for sure?

 

[zeke4ahs]

It would almost take a super liberal locality to create it just so it would be challenged. But at the end of the day, SCOTUS wouldn’t grant cert to that. Gay marriage and sodomy laws are next but I doubt they have the balls to go after contraceptives or interracial marriage.

I think they will go after the morning after pill and perhaps even IUDs. Hard to tell where they will stop.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

I think they will go after the morning after pill and perhaps even IUDs. Hard to tell where they will stop.

Read the opinion. You are spreading disinformation.

 

[UncleMark]

It would almost take a super liberal locality to create it just so it would be challenged. But at the end of the day, SCOTUS wouldn’t grant cert to that. Gay marriage and sodomy laws are next but I doubt they have the balls to go after contraceptives or interracial marriage.

Which shows what phony bastards they are. If all those cases were grounded on the same basis, they all should stand or fall, regardless of the politics or popularity. The states would then of course be free to take the questions back up.

 

[Spartans9312]

I think they will go after the morning after pill and perhaps even IUDs. Hard to tell where they will stop.

Who is “they”?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Read the opinion. You are spreading disinformation.

My Adobe is obviously broken as searching in it does not contain the words "we will not overturn" followed by other cases such as Obergefell. Can you point them out.

He points out how THIS case is different but different does not mean he finds them clearly constitutional unless your Adobe can find the words "clearly constitutional".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think they will go after the morning after pill and perhaps even IUDs. Hard to tell where they will stop.

My Adobe is obviously broken as searching in it does not contain the words "we will not overturn" followed by other cases such as Obergefell. Can you point them out.

He points out how THIS case is different but different does not mean he finds them clearly constitutional unless your Adobe can find the words "clearly constitutional".

This line of argument is just stupid on so many levels. Let’s start with what needs to happen before these cases even get to SCOTUS. The court doesn’t issue rulings cuz it wants to issue rulings.

And you need to read the cases you are talking about. You obviously haven’t done that. They are different cases.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This line of argument is just stupid on so many levels. Let’s start with what needs to happen before these cases even get to SCOTUS. The court doesn’t issue rulings cuz it wants to issue rulings.

And you need to read the cases you are talking about. You obviously haven’t done that. They are different cases.

Of course they are different cases. All cases are different. Plan B happens after fertilizing, SOME believe the fertilized egg is the moment life begins. If so, how is plan B safe.

As to the rest, blame Thomas for sticking his ignorant trap into it. It will encourage people to challenge and yes, a judge can use that dissent as a authority even if not a precedent.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Of course they are different cases. All cases are different. Plan B happens after fertilizing, SOME believe the fertilized egg is the moment life begins. If so, how is plan B safe.

As to the rest, blame Thomas for sticking his ignorant trap into it. It will encourage people to challenge and yes, a judge can use that dissent as a authority even if not a precedent.

Facts are a little different. When you go In for an abortion you know you are pregnant. With Plan B you have no idea. You just don't know if the guy left a present

I haven't read any of the opinions

 

[TMFT]

Facts are a little different. When you go In for an abortion you know you are pregnant. With Plan B you have no idea. You just don't know if the guy left a present

I haven't read any of the opinions

I’m not sure the anti abortion folks would make that distinction.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Facts are a little different. When you go In for an abortion you know you are pregnant. With Plan B you have no idea. You just don't know if the guy left a present

I haven't read any of the opinions

While true, the net result that a fertilized egg (ie human life to some) is destroyed. The court might well decide plan B is fine, I agree. But anyone saying they certainly will is lying.

 

[mcmurtry66]

While true, the net result that a fertilized egg (ie human life to some) is destroyed. The court might well decide plan B is fine, I agree. But anyone saying they certainly will is lying.

I’m not sure the anti abortion folks would make that distinction.

But that's not accurate. You presume the egg is fertilized but you don't know that. No one knows. It's been a while but I think you have to take plan b within 2 days

 

[Marvin the Martian]

But that's not accurate. You presume the egg is fertilized but you don't know that. No one knows. It's been a while but I think you have to take plan b within 2 days

If one million women take plan B in a year it is guaranteed fertilized eggs are being discarded. So for someone who believes the fertilized egg is human life, it is killing humans. So the potential is there.