Throwing Car Batteries Into the Ocean
Adam Downer • 6 years ago
2022 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Overturn (meme)
Uploaded by Owen May 03, 2022 at 02:10PM EDT
roe v wade supreme court 2022 overturn abortion women's rights government politics united states politico leak
Origin Entry: 2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade
File type: jpg
Resolution: (1000px x 630px)
File size: 183 KB
Moar:
0
2022 Supreme Court Overturning of Roe v. Wade - 2022 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Overturn (meme)
| ◄ Previous | View Gallery Random Image | Next ► |
![Matt Ford @fordm In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage. Cite as: 597 U. S. (2022) 3 THOMAS, J., concurring 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con- traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar- riage), are not at issue. The Court's abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31-32, 66, 71-72, and no party has asked us to decide "whether our entire Fourteenth Amend- ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised," McDon- ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that "[n]othing in [the Court's] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor- tion." Ante, at 66. 19 For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstra- bly erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr- iad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen- erated. 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. Amdt. :](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/002/392/454/11f.png "Justice Clarence Thomas Suggests Overturning Gay Marriage")
![Cite as: 597 U. S. (2022) 3 THOMAS, J., concurring 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain con- traceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Oberge- fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex mar- riage), are not at issue. The Court's abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31-32, 66, 71-72, and no party has asked us to decide "whether our entire Fourteenth Amend- ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised," McDon- ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that "[n]othing in [the Court's] opinion should be under- stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor- tion." Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstra- bly erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr- iad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen- erated. 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. Amdt. *Griswold v. Connecticut purported not to rely on the Due Process Clause, but rather reasoned "that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights" including rights enumerated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments-"have penumbras, formed by emanations," that create "zones of privacy." 381 U. S., at 484. Since Griswold, the Court, perhaps recognizing the facial absurdity of Griswold's penumbral argument, has characterized the decision as one rooted in substantive due process. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644, 663 (2015); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997).](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/002/392/455/482 "Justice Clarence Thomas Suggests Overturning Gay Marriage")
Comments (1)
Add a Comment
Image Details
889 views (11 from today)
Uploaded May 03, 2022 at 02:10PM EDT
Origin Entry
Source
Tags
roe v wade, supreme court, 2022, overturn, abortion, women's rights, government, politics, united states, politico, leak
About the Uploader
Owen
Federal Agent
Textile Embed
Today's Top Image Galleries
Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of Literally Media Ltd . By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and privacy policy and DMCA policy .
© 2007-2025 Literally Media Ltd.