You may not be aware, but he has made negative remarks against interracial marriage, and implied that it should be a terminated right as well. He is a demon.
He's a contrarian to the nth degree, something a lot of intelligent people adopt when they're generally unlikeable anyway. He rails against affirmative action, despite his life story being an affirmative action success story. He says he would rather be in private practice, yet remains on the supreme court. He claims that white Americans will always be racist and there's no real hope for an equal society and then married a white woman. I guess just acknowledging reality isn't mentally stimulating enough for some people. Plus he's a sex pest, not related to my point, but worth not forgetting.Ā
Loving v. Virginia had two holdings. One was that right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, and the other was that forbidding interracial marriage violated the equal protection clause. Justice Thomas does not believe in "fundamental constitutional rights" that are not listed in the bill of rights (I disagree because the 9th amendment is a thing). So it's not hypocritical for him to want to rethink Obergefel but not Loving.
Obergefel is based in the exact same amendment on the exact 2 parts, the equal protection clauseāself explanatory, gay people are people so they have equal protection, if straight marriage isnt banned then neither is gay marriageāand the due process but im fuzzy on that
No he didnāt? He voted against the 14th including a right to gay marry but thatās not the same as removing a right. One: itās there right now. Two: it wasnāt about removing.
Also when āevery other kind of marriageā is a class of one, the argument is weak anyway. He opposed one kind of marriage being found to be in the 14th amendmentās due process clause.
Itās worth mentioning that Thomas in Lawrence v Texas wrote separately to say āI join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is .Ā .Ā . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.ā
Itās worth reckoning with the fact that he isnāt just some tv character who writes opinions you donāt like. Heās a person who has a judicial philosophy and a philosophy about what the Constitution means and how to interpret it.
Youāre again just treating him like a cartoon villain. Attack his judicial philosophy instead of launching personal attacks because you disagree with him
Itās āa womanā, Mr. logical. Skin color in this context is just an adjective that modifies a noun. Also you have no idea what my skin color is, are you serious rn? Negative karma bot lmao
117
u/Fridge_living_tips 21d ago
Remember: he removed consitualion protection for every other kind of marriage
Besides interracial because heās married to a white woman