Hey remember when Flash said the GOP wouldn't go after gay marriage or birth control?

[LV426]

Thomas let us know his opinion on the topic.

No, he wrote a Concurrent Opinion which merely provides additional legal justification for the majority opinion.

Thomas actually took the time to write this.

Alito wrote just the opposite and his opinion is current law.

NO HE DIDN'T.

He did not "write the opposite", what he did was provide his legal justification for the decision...Thomas provided additional legal justification in a Concurrent Opinion because that's what Concurrent Opinions are, Flash.

A Concurrent Opinion is usually only provided when there is no plurality among the majority decision, but there is in this case, which means a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of test cases that would facilitate the development of a new legal rule, and in turn, such a concurring opinion may become more precedential than the majority opinion in the same case. An example of this is the Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. decision.

Again, Flash is catastrophically wrong in his analysis, instincts, and judgment because he is too consumed with appearing as a thoughtful moderate when he's really a reactionary extremist.

 

[Flash]

No, he wrote a Concurrent Opinion which merely provides additional legal justification for the majority opinion.

NO HE DIDN'T.

He [Alito] did not "write the opposite", what he did was provide his legal justification for the decision...Thomas provided additional legal justification in a Concurrent Opinion because that's what Concurrent Opinions are, Flash.

Again, Flash is catastrophically wrong in his analysis, instincts, and judgment because he is too consumed with appearing as a thoughtful moderate when he's really a reactionary extremist.

Well, let's look at what Kavanaugh and Alito actually wrote. LV426 does not realize reading the cases is necessary before he can pretend to know what he is talking about.

Kavanaugh's concurring opinion:

First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially
difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).

Alito's Majority Opinion:

Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those
decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” Brief
for United States 26 (citing Obergefell, 576 U. S. 644; Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558; Griswold, 381 U. S. 479). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

It is clear both Alito and Kavanaugh stated the Dobbs decision on abortion do not affect the other right to privacy cases. I believe Roberts made similar statements. So the Thomas opinion that suggested these cases should be examined, is a single opinion not supported by most of the court.

Maybe this will convince LV426 to read the cases.

 

[LV426]

Well, let's look at what Kavanaugh and Alito actually wrote. LV426 does not realize reading the cases is necessary before he can pretend to know what he is talking about.

Four years ago, Flash was on JPP saying Roe would never be overturned because of precedent.

He was wrong, of course.

 

[LV426]

It is clear both Alito and Kavanaugh stated the Dobbs decision on abortion do not affect the other right to privacy cases.

But it only takes four justices to hear a case, so...you're avoiding.

It is clear both Alito and Kavanaugh stated the Dobbs decision on abortion do not affect the other right to privacy cases.

But that doesn't mean anything, Flash...it does not bind the Supreme Court to that decision for future cases.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Probably because you're a fucking moron.

I believe Roberts made similar statements.

No, he didn't...this is your feeble mind inventing something that never happened.

Concurrent Opinions do serve a legal basis, and have been used as precedent in other court cases before, like the one I linked to in my post that you obviously ignored because it runs in direct contradiction to the fantasy you believe SCOTUS operates under.

Also, reminder that six years ago, you reactionary extremists all said that Roe would never be overturned.

Every single thing you've predicted has been wrong.

Every. Single. Thing.

You are also responsible for the ending of Roe because of your vote in 2016.

 

[LV426]

So the Thomas opinion that suggested these cases should be examined, is a single opinion not supported by most of the court.

No.

The other members of the court never weighed in on Thomas' Concurrent Opinion because he drafted it after Alito's opinion had already been circulated internally.

Concurrent Opinions don't get circulated among all members of the court prior to the issuance of the formal opinion.

What that means is that none of the Nazi judges ever weighed in on Thomas' concurrent opinion because that's not how the process works, idiot.

Concurrent Opinions are decisions tacked onto the formal opinion AFTER, not before.

So what you're saying is "unsupportive" is in actuality neither supportive or unsupportive.

The reason it's neither is because Concurrent Opinions aren't circulated internally among the justices before they are released. They are just released.

What Thomas is doing is providing the basis to hear challenges to those precedents, which only require 4 justices...so if you take away Kavanaugh and Alito, you're still at 4 Nazi judges who can hear any legal challenge they want, including challenges to Lawrence, Obergefell and the rest.

 

[Flash]

Four years ago, Flash was on JPP saying Roe would never be overturned because of precedent.

He was wrong, of course.

It was more than precedent. The history of the court is reluctant to change precedent when it would cause major disruptions in the states. Obviously, nobody can be sure what will happen in the future. I did not think Roe would be overturned just like the majority of legal scholars, judges, and lawyers believed.

Yes, I was wrong just as LV426 was wrong when he told us the 2020 election would be canceled. I don't think he really wants to keep score on who has been wrong more times--he would lose badly. He is especially weak on constitutional law.

 

[Flash]

No.

The other members of the court never weighed in on Thomas' Concurrent Opinion because he drafted it after Alito's opinion had already been circulated internally.

Concurrent Opinions don't get circulated among all members of the court prior to the issuance of the formal opinion.

What that means is that none of the Nazi judges ever weighed in on Thomas' concurrent opinion because that's not how the process works, idiot.

Concurrent Opinions are decisions tacked onto the formal opinion AFTER, not before.

So what you're saying is "unsupportive" is in actuality neither supportive or unsupportive.

The reason it's neither is because Concurrent Opinions aren't circulated internally among the justices before they are released. They are just released.

They didn't have to issue opinions about it. Do you think the three liberal judges want to change those right to privacy cases? If not, that leaves six against those changes.

It would be difficult to even get a case to the Supreme Court. A state would have to pass a law prohibiting interracial marriage or contraception, for example, and then that case would have to be accepted by the Supreme Court on appeal from lower courts before they could even rule on it. I don't think we see a call to end these practices like we saw on abortion.

 

[LV426]

It was more than precedent.

But you and all the other reactionary extremists were wrong.

Completely fucking wrong.

You screamed like a moron that none of the rights would be taken away by Conservatives, which is how you justified throwing your vote away in 2016.

The history of the court is reluctant to change precedent when it would cause major disruptions in the states.

LMAO! Well you sure got played there, didn't you?

So maybe your judgment wasn't as good as you like others to think, and you should shut your fuckin' mouth.

Obviously, nobody can be sure what will happen in the future.

Nope...we were very sure this was going to happen, and you were very sure it wouldn't, just like you're very sure the court won't overturn gay marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraception.

So instead of making excuses, how about you just admit you're full of shit and always have been, and that your "centrism" is just reactionary performative bullshit?

How about you admit that we were right about Conservatism the whole time, and that you were using BoTHSiDeS because you are a dullard, a fraud, a phony, and someone incapable of critical thinking because you've been coddled your entire life?

 

[LV426]

I I did not think Roe would be overturned just like the majority of legal scholars, judges, and lawyers believed.

Even though many of those legal scholars, judges, and lawyers were warning you that this was coming...you just were self-assured in your own arrogance that your personal judgment was solid.

IT WASN'T.

You got played because you side with fascists when push comes to shove...you give them the benefit of the doubt, you coddle them, you lower the bar for them because you are them.

Your response to the warnings was to BoTHSIdEs.

You were wrong, but not only were you wrong, you were an asshole about it too...which is why you are to blame for this.

 

[LV426]

Yes, I was wrong just as LV426 was wrong when he told us the 2020 election would be canceled.

I never said that.

What I said was that he would try to cancel the election, and he did try to cancel the election.

You lied about what I said because a) you're old as fuck and can't remember anything anymore and b) you didn't actually read what I wrote, you created a straw man in order to levy these impotent attacks.

I NEVER SAID TRUMP WOULD CANCEL THE ELECTION, I SAID HE WOULD TRY TO DO IT.

You owe me an apology for lying about what I said.

 

[Damocles]

They still won't. One guy saying they should does not change that.

 

[LV426]

They didn't have to issue opinions about it.

But Thomas did, after Alito's opinion was already circulated and voted upon.

You only need the consensus of 4 justices in order for a legal challenge to be heard in SCOTUS. So if we take you at your word, and that Justice Penis Head and Justice Beer Keg don't agree with Thomas' legal rationale, that still leaves 4 other Nazi justices who probably do.

So Beer Keg and Penis Head provide themselves with cover, knowing that there are four other justices who can hear challenges based on Thomas' reasoning...OR Beer Keg and Penis Head could just reverse themselves too, since they already lied about precedent under oath during their confirmation hearings.

 

[LV426]

Do you think the three liberal judges want to change those right to privacy cases?

This is where your inexperience and lack of knowledge is doing the most damage.

You only need the consensus of four justices to hear a challenge at SCOTUS, so if you take out Beer Keg and Penis Head, how many Nazi judges are left to hear legal challenges? Four; Cult Lady, Cult Chief Justice, ghost-white, and the leaker's husband.

 

[LV426]

It would be difficult to even get a case to the Supreme Court.

Not at all.

And it only takes the consensus of four justices for SCOTUS to hear a case.

A state would have to pass a law prohibiting interracial marriage or contraception, for example

Already in the works, pal...as usual, you are late to the game but you're still trying to tell everyone you know how the game is going...

Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control
But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their ambition wasn’t only to target a familiar abortion foe. They were going after specific forms of birth control as well, notably, emergency contraceptives, often sold under the brand name Plan B, and intrauterine devices, known as IUDs. GOP lawmakers tried to stop Missouri’s Medicaid agency from paying for those forms of contraception.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...me-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control

Can we all just agree that Flash knows nothing, has shit instincts, terrible judgment, and rotten character?

 

[LV426]

I don't think we see a call to end these practices like we saw on abortion.

It's funny...almost everything Flash writes is contradicted by immediate events...almost as if Flash has no finger on the pulse of the country, he just lives in a fantasy world of his own making, created with the purpose of providing Flash with comfort in institutions that have always protected his interests.

But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their ambition wasn’t only to target a familiar abortion foe. They were going after specific forms of birth control as well, notably, emergency contraceptives, often sold under the brand name Plan B, and intrauterine devices, known as IUDs. GOP lawmakers tried to stop Missouri’s Medicaid agency from paying for those forms of contraception.

Missouri state Sen. Paul Wieland, one of the Republicans who led that effort, explained his position this way: “The bottom line is there is only one time something definitively happens and that’s the moment of conception. Once that happens, anything that happens should not be state funded.”
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...me-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control

 

[Flash]

But you and all the other reactionary extremists were wrong.

Completely fucking wrong.

Yes, I was wrong just like you were wrong about Alito and Kavanaugh saying the Dobbs case does not affect the other right to privacy cases. You just told us they did not say that because you did not bother to read the cases.

I don't think most legal scholars, justices, and lawyers are extremist reactionaries.

You screamed like a moron that none of the rights would be taken away by Conservatives, which is how you justified throwing your vote away in 2016.

Emotional exaggerations. I never scream about anything, I just said I did not think they would overturn Roe.

You don't know math. My one vote would not have changed Hillary into the winner of my state. Use some logic.

So maybe your judgment wasn't as good as you like others to think, and you should shut your fuckin' mouth.

Nope...we were very sure this was going to happen, and you were very sure it wouldn't, just like you're very sure the court won't overturn gay marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraception.

So instead of making excuses, how about you just admit you're full of shit and always have been, and that your "centrism" is just reactionary performative bullshit?

How about you admit that we were right about Conservatism the whole time, and that you were using BoTHSiDeS because you are a dullard, a fraud, a phony, and someone incapable of critical thinking because you've been coddled your entire life?

I just proved you wrong about the Alito and Kavanaugh decisions and you chose to drop the subject. You didn't even bother to defend your statements but, as usual, turned to personal insults and attacks.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Flash]

It's funny...almost everything Flash writes is contradicted by immediate events...almost as if Flash has no finger on the pulse of the country, he just lives in a fantasy world of his own making, created with the purpose of providing Flash with comfort in institutions that have always protected his interests.

Supreme Court justices have already said those are safe. That carries a lot more weight than "those Republicans" that cannot do anything without a lot of support.

Your statements about Kavanaugh and Alito were contradicted before you even made those claims. You wrote stuff you knew was wrong or, more likely, knew nothing at all. You disagreed with me not because you read the cases, but because it didn't fit your partisan straight jacket.

 

[LV426]

They still won't. One guy saying they should does not change that.

Of course they will and they already are trying...they've been shouting it from the rooftops, so what is your excuse for not knowing?

Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control
But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their ambition wasn’t only to target a familiar abortion foe. They were going after specific forms of birth control as well, notably, emergency contraceptives, often sold under the brand name Plan B, and intrauterine devices, known as IUDs. GOP lawmakers tried to stop Missouri’s Medicaid agency from paying for those forms of contraception.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...me-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control

 

[LV426]

Yes, I was wrong just like you were wrong about Alito and Kavanaugh saying the Dobbs case does not affect the other right to privacy cases.

Alito and Kavanaugh also said that Roe was established precedent and law and both just voted that it wasn't.

So what I don't understand is why you believe this after those Nazi judges already lied to your face?

Are you fucking stupid or just incredibly naive?