SC justice says gay rights, contraception rulings should be reconsidered

[reader]

From CNBC 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.

Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Thomas’ recommendation to reconsider that trio of decisions does not have the force of legal precedent, nor does it compel his colleagues on the Supreme Court to take the action he suggested.

But it is an implicit invitation to conservative lawmakers in individual states to pass legislation that might run afoul of the Supreme Court’s past decisions, with an eye toward having that court potentially reverse those rulings.

[PeterRS]

Clarence Thomas must surely be one of the most disastrous appointments to the US Supreme Court. I wonder if any other posters watched his confirmation hearings before the Senate. I did and was appalled. The accusation by Anita Hill was clearly disturbing for him, but the defence he was given time to prepare was a farce. My friends and I sat in Tokyo and we all expressed the view, "Methinks he doth protest too much." When someone goes to that length (he called it akin to a lynching) without actually refuting the allegations, in my view he is guilty, the more so when you actually looked closely at his facial movements. He was a sexual predator and should never have been confirmed. That Joe Biden as the President of the Senate barred two other women from testifying and then pushed through the nomination by the slimmest of margins remains a major blot on Biden's record.

As a non-American, I find it near ridiculous that Justices are nominated only by the President. The fact is that most of the ultra right-wing conservatives on the Court were nominated by Presidents who had lost the popular vote. So they owe their position to a minority of the voting public. The toxic split that has been evident in Washington for years resulted in the the awful Mitch McConnell holding up the nomination of Merrick Garland for (was it) 10 months because he was determined to get a conservative Justice on the Court rather than a liberal. Then in their Senate hearings, I seem to recall that all three Trump nominees stated something like Roe v. Wade was established law - the impression being they would probably not seek to overturn it. Now even Trump has stated he objects to their action!

I don't think there are any cases near the Supreme Court involving gay marriage. But I'll bet that someone will start an action very soon. And if the Court membership remains with a 6-3 conservative majority (although John Roberts seems to have become slightly more of a moderate), who's to say gay marriage won't go the way of Roe v. Wade sooner rather than later.

[vinapu]

that's all Americans problem but I find it strange and unhelpful for administration of justice that Supreme Court judges are awarded status of such celebrities.

Again , not my problem.

[reader]

The tragedy of the currents court make up was sealed when Justice Ginsberg died in office of terminal cancer during Trump administration. Many Democrats had urged her to retire when she suffered first bout of disease when Obama was in office. That would have altered the the liberal-conservative split. 
 

Although a conservative on many issues, Chief Justice Roberts has shown more centrist positions on some social issues. Now, however, even if he sides with liberals the conservatives still hold a 5-4 dominance.

 

[vinapu]

I don't know much about legal system in USA but what kind of justice it is if your term behind the bars may depend not on what you did but on the views of the judge. As I said before , that's sad that judges become celebrities and celebrities for life at that.

[reader]

The selection and ratification process of the court is the root of the problem. The president puts forth a nominee and the Senate determines the nominee’s fate. 

At one time, senators from both parties actually collaborated to support a suitable candidate. But now it’s a very adversarial process. instead, nominees are selected primarily on their liberal/conservative voting record in lower courts.

The other problem is lifetime appointments. This means that a 50-year old appointment could conceivably serve for 40+ years.

Given the ages of the court’s current conservative members, Americans can expect more of the same well into the future.

[JKane]

[JKane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[caeron]

 

I think the supreme court should be reconsidered.

[PeterRS]

6 hours ago, caeron said:

I think the supreme court should be reconsidered.

Although not an American, viewing from afar I have to agree. I also think certain parts of the electoral system and the Constitution should be reviewed - at least from time to time. For example, why is it necessary to have such a huge gap between the declaration of the winner in a general election and the assumption of power? Clearly it was necessary 200+ years ago when travel was by buggy and it took States time to gather all the votes and then declare a winner in the electoral college. Then it took more time to get all those votes/electors from the west coast to Washington before they could all be certified by Congress. But we don't live in the 18th century. In many developed countries vote counts take hours rather than days or weeks and often, as in the UK, the loser moves out of the official residence in Downing Street only a day or so after the vote. When this takes more than 2 months, you end up with Trump and any other future President who is determined to use everything avaiable to him and much else to contest votes and remain in office illegally. Oh, I know there were the hanging chad shenanigans in 2000. Had there been a sensible and obvious voting system in place in Florida that would not have happened IMHO!

The Constitution is often held up as an example of how prescient and great the framers were. Again I have to ask: how is it that what was seen as right and proper centuries ago remains so today? Did the framers really want their country to be overrun by guns and gun violence as it is today? Did they envisage the vast social changes that would engulf the world after World War II? Granted they were not always in agreement and there were major differences of opinion back then. But did they foresee the near total gridlock that now exists in Washington? Did they foresee a supremely political Supreme Court which, from those viewing from afar, seems to have two sex offenders on the bench, both put on the Court primarily for political reasons? Why did they determine that Justices would serve for life? With the vast majority of the population now having to retire at a certain age, why not those on the Supreme Court? Similarly with Congress?

Just questions for discussion. The UK has its own set of major problems as do other countries. But US democracy in particular seems rooted in a period centuries ago with those in power determined not to enact what seem like necessary changes to bring it into the 21st century.

[Latbear4blk]

The one thing I like of these developments is that they unmask the deeply undemocratic nature of American "model" democracy. 

[PeterRS]

Let me add I don't think there is any model form of democracy. I'm not even sure that democracy is the ideal way of running countries any more. US democracy worked effectively for a long time once women and African Americans had finally been given the vote. With apologies to my American friends, I think it is in need of quite a major overhaul. Apart from the points I mentioned in my earlier posts, the US seems to have nothing but a continuous flow of elections for all manner of posts in States and towns, all requiring cash and I guess not a little corruption. Is such short-term thinking effective today?

Britain always maintained it had a near perfect democracy, but for centuries the only people who could vote were landowners and the aristocracy. Most citizens can now vote - but only if you actually live in the country. As a Brit who has lived outside the country for some decades, my right to vote was stripped from me ages ago and even though I continue to pay for my National Insurance contributions I have also been stripped of my rights to the National Health service. A refugee has more rights to medical treatment under the Health Service than I. My moans aside, though, Britain's first past the post system, like that of the USA, is clearly undemocratic. Having a government frequently voted in by a minority of voters cannot be democratic.

Singapore is much admired throughout the world for its stunning developments in the economy, housing for most citizens, superb urban planning and so on. Singapore under its founding Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew had amazing vision and determination but it was a dictatorship in all but name. Could it have developed so quickly in such a short space of time with several political parties constantly vying for power? Frankly I doubt it. Further north, many loathe the idea of communism but could China have dragged a number many now believe as more than 600 million out of poverty in the shortest period in world history if it had been a democracy as those in the west know it? I am certain the answer will be 'no'.

Lee Kwan Yew consistently informed western nations they had to realise that western forms of democracy were not necessarily the way to run Asian countries. He called it democracy with Asian characteristics. Yet the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis unearthed the crony capitalism practised in many countries and proved that he was far from entirely correct. 

My guess is that countries which have basically just two parties can never form anything like a near-perfect functioning democracy. We are seeing that now in a big way in the USA and to a lesser extent in the UK. Corruption in one of its forms will never be far away from such a system. Long-term policy also becomes a near impossibility as power ebbs and flows between parties. On the other hand, Israel is the perfect example of a country with many parties and a different form of democracy but has massive difficulties in forming any government. In that sense, countries like China have a big edge. Could a country as large as China ever become democratic? Certainly not in my lifetime. Democracy has to come from within and there is as yet no stomach for such a shift in that huge country. 

I realise there are no easy answers. But are there in fact any answers better than what already exists?

[reader]

The politicization of the court IMO constitutes the biggest threat to US democracy. It has the potential to bring about civil unrest and increased acts of political violence on the part of individuals and groups. The Trump era wrought inestimable damage to the nation. 

[JKane]