"that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government..."
LOL! It's the literal definition! "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
I mean, he might had said that bigots that don't hide that they are bigots will be recognized as bigots!
The Hebrews were a smallish tribe in a dangerous area, surrounded by greater powers. They needed all the manpower they could get to stave off extinction, and homosexuals don't reproduce. I think of it the way I think of rules against eating pork and shellfish--because without refrigeration it could have fatal effects.
There is a flaw with your theory about eating pork. Before they adopt what will become Yahweh as their principal/only deity, the Israelites ancestors ate pigs. It's why archaeologists love garbage pits so much.
Hebrew law said homosexuals should be put to death, thus reducing manpower, so your argument is flawed on two counts, because homosexuals can and quite often do reproduce without any advanced tech.
There is a theory that Gays exist in mammals because making kids may spread diseases. Gays serve as a "circuit breaker" TO ENSURE REPRODUCTIVE ADULTS capable of raising children.
Too bad about the first point: I love a good theory (even if it turns out to be wrong). But I'm not so convinced about the second point, Strikes me as unlikely back then.
I have a cousin who wouldn't exist if my gay uncle hadn't reproduced the old fashioned way. Just because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean they can't, especially in their teens and 20s.
A cultural expectation that you can get off with or build a life with or love whomever you want as long as you produce 3 or more children would suffice for probably 80-90% of homosexuals.
Early Hebrew teachings didn't say anything about homosexuality but, over time, it changed to homosexuality being against the Torah. Even though a lot of people just tut-tutted about it and didn't do much about it.
Part of what you said is accurate - they needed more Hebrews being born to swell their numbers. (Even if the punishment for homosexuality was death.) But there's more to it than that.
The church also needed more money. The more Hebrews there were, the more tithe money came into the church. And the more money was earned by the common Hebrew man which was needed for trade and to bribe the Romans that harrassed them.
It also meant the more powerful Hebrews could become even more powerful and have more people to rule over.
They also wanted to distance themselves from those cultures that practiced male sodomy as a regular occurance, such as in Greece.
By virtue of the fact that Alito not only believes in mythical beings and superstition, but he believes that these myths should influence the law of the land, makes him wholly unqualified for the position he holds.
It would seem as though Sam Alito doesn't believe in 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒, the process of selecting an UNBIASED JURY. Either that or he thinks that Christians should by default be able to bring their biases and bigotries into the courtroom. WRONG, SAMMY!
One more reason why Alito and the rest of the right wing nut jobs on SCOTUS should be removed from the court, not that they will be. [sigh]
Oh, if only Mr. Alito got this upset over his religion's clergy sexually abusing children. Alas, not a peep out of him on the subject (not that we expect any).
Excluding anti-gay jurors in a case involving a lesbian is not religious 'persecution' or discrimination. The jurors affected might say, and believe, that they are impartial, but there is such a thing as unconscious bias that can stay in the background and affect these jurors' deliberations. Alito is wrong to push back on this. But then, Alito is pretty much wrong about most things.
The audacity! A stacked trump court of incompetent boobs, ultra right and overwhelmingly Catholic! But putting someone on the jury who is already extremely biased is a bad idea! A man is feared because he may shoot his ex who is now in a same-sex relationship. So sure put an anti-LGBTQIA on the jury! And the claim that it’s discrimination of religion!! Alito & the rest of these right wing nut cases need to be removed from SCOTUS. They ARE anti-constitution! 🤦🏻
Religion is irrelevant to our laws. In the words of FFRF founder, ANN Gaylor, There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views on 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges…, namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views about 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government... The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid that this admonition is not being heeded by our society.
I remember in 2010 or so when the Chicago Sun Times allowed comments that I got into an argument with a RW Christian who insisted that it wasn't bigotry when it was being done for God and it was fine to harass LGBTQ+ if it turned them away from "sin". I pointed out that God-inspired bigotry is still bigotry and by his logic, it was OK to harass Christians to give up their cult to save them from their ignorance.
That's an argument you're not going to win, because it's a difference of premises rather than reasoning. Bigotry is using class membership to inform a decision 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. Fundie Christians see membership in the 'gay' group to be a choice to do immoral deeds, which makes it relevant to a lot of decisions. The rest of us see it as neither a choice nor implying immoral deeds, so class membership is not relevant to most decisions. We all may agree on what bigotry *is*, but because we and the fundie Christians start from different premises, we end at different conclusions about whether membership in the gay group is relevant to decisions, so different conclusions about whether using class membership is bigotry or justified.
Being Christian is a choice so if they think it's fine to harass people for making the non-choice of being gay then it should be fine to harass people for being Christian.
Good thing there's been no precedent/real-world examples of Christians letting their religious views about homosexuality interfere with their secular life to the detriment/rights of others *cough* Kim Davis *cough*
Given the fact there simply isn't any horror that cannot be justified in the name of faith, this speaks directly to Alito's authoritarian Neo-fascist mindset. If and when the American republic is destroyed from within, it will be done in the name of God and conservatism. Blowing up democracy will be ever so much easier than getting it back once it's gone.
First World Problems: when you can afford to appeal a $100 fine all the way up to SCOTUS because you're butthurt about having to wear a bit of cloth on your face 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.
First World Problems: When you prefer a $100k fine to being a reasonable adult because you're butthurt over having to wear a bit of cloth on your face 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.
There is a disturbingly large number of judges, many of them appointed by the republicans Dear Leader, gawd and Master, who seem to believe that religious bigotry should excuse virtually any behavior--even criminal behavior.
Because about a third of the country thinks homophobia is morality, about a sixth are 'out of sight, out of mind' homophobes, another six don't care about the homophobes, they're just afraid they'll be discriminated against for being Christian if homophobes are 'discriminated' against.
Yep. I was a juror on a murder case and two people were excused for racism. Some speculated they just wanted to get out of being a juror but anyone with eyeballs and half a brain could tell it was the real deal.
Lol, they tried to be quiet and on the down low about it but the attorney conducting voir dire was having none of that. And we all got to hear it unless one was sitting too far back.
Thomas is on the repeal “Loving” bandwagon, despite his marriage. He’s on the court to carry water for the GOP, it’s what made him rich. His position and wealth are supposed to protect him from any consequences, though you and I know they won’t.
Why am I not surprised that Thomas the 'House Negro' is kissing up? What does he care about his brothers and sisters toiling away in the fields? He sees himself as superior to them. He'll learn the hard way that he is not.
Yup. Too bad for him that he's the only one who sees it. Does he really think that rich whites like Harlan Crow lavished expensive vacations on him (which he paid no taxes on) because they like him and that they're somehow his friends? They expect something in return (bet their servants are people of color).
Trump would be in the Executive Branch while the Senate is in the Legislative Branch. Those checks and balances we're supposed to have. Let's not give Trump any more power than he would actually have.
Even if he tries, SCOTUS will slap him down. Back when he was squatting in the WH, he decided he couldn't be prosecuted for any crimes he'd commit while he was in office. SCOTUS, his own 3 picks included, ruled against him unanimously.
I would not be confident they ruled against him because it was the right thing to do but because for at least 5 of them, the idea that a Democrat president could use the same argument is unbearable.
My argument is that people give Trump more power than he really has. SCOTUS did rule against him on a number of occasions when he was POTUS. He can try to make himself a king if he somehow gets back in (he still trails Biden currently). Let's see how that would go.
People were so afraid of Trump back in 2020 they were sure he was going to cheat his way to the top. He lost both the popular vote (again) and the electoral vote. They worried for nothing. They think he's going to win at everything when the reality is that he keeps losing. Every time he opens his mouth, he loses more (he's certainly losing one appeal after the other).
I possess no powers of clairvoyance. I just wish people would stop making Orangey untouchable and more than he is.
I just worry because I know that many of his minions got themselves onto local election boards in the swing states. I'm afraid they're going to cheat for him the way they claimed the Democrats cheated in 2020.
IIRC Thomas has already said that Loving was wrongly decided. As cdbunch points out, he doesn't care because he expects his wealth and status will protect him from the removal of rights he currently enjoys.
I mean, this is the whole issue with abortion and now IVF foetus personhood too, right? The upper class is happy to restrict it, because they know that they can afford a workaround if/when they personally need it. The list of Republican pro-life politicians who have privately gotten their daughters, wives, etc. abortions, is long.
ericc is in error. Thomas explicitly OMITTED Loving when he spoke of Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. He believed THOSE were wrongly decided but made no mention of Loving.
"that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government..."
Uhmmm, because they are.
There seem to be areas of the US where being labeled a bigot gets you better treatment from the local government. **cough Alabama cough**
This just in: bigot afraid of being called a bigot for being a bigot! Full story at 11!
Same as "racist" - being CALLED a racist is SOOOOO much more unacceptable than acting like a racist.
But Alito has a point, if people just would stop calling him a bigot, then he wouldn't be called a bigot.
A bigot by any other name would still stink bad enough to make skunks puke.
Alito is in that homophobic group, which is why he was prompted to comment.
LOL! It's the literal definition! "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
I mean, he might had said that bigots that don't hide that they are bigots will be recognized as bigots!
The Hebrews were a smallish tribe in a dangerous area, surrounded by greater powers. They needed all the manpower they could get to stave off extinction, and homosexuals don't reproduce. I think of it the way I think of rules against eating pork and shellfish--because without refrigeration it could have fatal effects.
There is a flaw with your theory about eating pork. Before they adopt what will become Yahweh as their principal/only deity, the Israelites ancestors ate pigs. It's why archaeologists love garbage pits so much.
Hebrew law said homosexuals should be put to death, thus reducing manpower, so your argument is flawed on two counts, because homosexuals can and quite often do reproduce without any advanced tech.
There is a theory that Gays exist in mammals because making kids may spread diseases. Gays serve as a "circuit breaker" TO ENSURE REPRODUCTIVE ADULTS capable of raising children.
Too bad about the first point: I love a good theory (even if it turns out to be wrong). But I'm not so convinced about the second point, Strikes me as unlikely back then.
I have a cousin who wouldn't exist if my gay uncle hadn't reproduced the old fashioned way. Just because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean they can't, especially in their teens and 20s.
A cultural expectation that you can get off with or build a life with or love whomever you want as long as you produce 3 or more children would suffice for probably 80-90% of homosexuals.
The opposite is also true; the whole "gay for pay" in porn.
I'm a theology graduate.
Early Hebrew teachings didn't say anything about homosexuality but, over time, it changed to homosexuality being against the Torah. Even though a lot of people just tut-tutted about it and didn't do much about it.
Part of what you said is accurate - they needed more Hebrews being born to swell their numbers. (Even if the punishment for homosexuality was death.) But there's more to it than that.
The church also needed more money. The more Hebrews there were, the more tithe money came into the church. And the more money was earned by the common Hebrew man which was needed for trade and to bribe the Romans that harrassed them.
It also meant the more powerful Hebrews could become even more powerful and have more people to rule over.
They also wanted to distance themselves from those cultures that practiced male sodomy as a regular occurance, such as in Greece.
Very interesting--thanks for that.
Shh. Remember, these people don’t care for truth much. Denial and ignorance prevail.
"Everything is a sin, but some sins matter more than others."
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
By virtue of the fact that Alito not only believes in mythical beings and superstition, but he believes that these myths should influence the law of the land, makes him wholly unqualified for the position he holds.
🎯
Cardinal Alito is unhappy that we don't all live under a medieval Catholic government.
He's working on it! 😒
It would seem as though Sam Alito doesn't believe in 𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒, the process of selecting an UNBIASED JURY. Either that or he thinks that Christians should by default be able to bring their biases and bigotries into the courtroom. WRONG, SAMMY!
One more reason why Alito and the rest of the right wing nut jobs on SCOTUS should be removed from the court, not that they will be. [sigh]
Oh, if only Mr. Alito got this upset over his religion's clergy sexually abusing children. Alas, not a peep out of him on the subject (not that we expect any).
Excluding anti-gay jurors in a case involving a lesbian is not religious 'persecution' or discrimination. The jurors affected might say, and believe, that they are impartial, but there is such a thing as unconscious bias that can stay in the background and affect these jurors' deliberations. Alito is wrong to push back on this. But then, Alito is pretty much wrong about most things.
The audacity! A stacked trump court of incompetent boobs, ultra right and overwhelmingly Catholic! But putting someone on the jury who is already extremely biased is a bad idea! A man is feared because he may shoot his ex who is now in a same-sex relationship. So sure put an anti-LGBTQIA on the jury! And the claim that it’s discrimination of religion!! Alito & the rest of these right wing nut cases need to be removed from SCOTUS. They ARE anti-constitution! 🤦🏻
Religion is irrelevant to our laws. In the words of FFRF founder, ANN Gaylor, There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
In this case, the court below reasoned that a person who still holds 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views on 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 morality is presumptively unfit to serve on a jury in a case involving a party who is a 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧. That holding exemplifies the danger that I anticipated in Obergefell v. Hodges…, namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 views about 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 will be “labeled as bigots and treated as such” by the government... The opinion of the Court in that case made it clear that the decision should not be used in that way, but I am afraid that this admonition is not being heeded by our society.
Hey Alito! Can you spot the difference?
Alito would probably rule that Kim Davis was within her rights to refuse marriage licenses to gay or lesbian couples.
Actually ... strike the word, "probably." 🤦♂️
And he is hoping to get an Apple Vision Pro from one of his wealthy, religious donors.
I remember in 2010 or so when the Chicago Sun Times allowed comments that I got into an argument with a RW Christian who insisted that it wasn't bigotry when it was being done for God and it was fine to harass LGBTQ+ if it turned them away from "sin". I pointed out that God-inspired bigotry is still bigotry and by his logic, it was OK to harass Christians to give up their cult to save them from their ignorance.
That's an argument you're not going to win, because it's a difference of premises rather than reasoning. Bigotry is using class membership to inform a decision 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛. Fundie Christians see membership in the 'gay' group to be a choice to do immoral deeds, which makes it relevant to a lot of decisions. The rest of us see it as neither a choice nor implying immoral deeds, so class membership is not relevant to most decisions. We all may agree on what bigotry *is*, but because we and the fundie Christians start from different premises, we end at different conclusions about whether membership in the gay group is relevant to decisions, so different conclusions about whether using class membership is bigotry or justified.
Being Christian is a choice so if they think it's fine to harass people for making the non-choice of being gay then it should be fine to harass people for being Christian.
It's an argument you're not going to win because Christians are fucking stupid. FTFY😇
Except my morality isn't any of their business. It neither harms them or picks their pocket.
Good thing there's been no precedent/real-world examples of Christians letting their religious views about homosexuality interfere with their secular life to the detriment/rights of others *cough* Kim Davis *cough*
Given the fact there simply isn't any horror that cannot be justified in the name of faith, this speaks directly to Alito's authoritarian Neo-fascist mindset. If and when the American republic is destroyed from within, it will be done in the name of God and conservatism. Blowing up democracy will be ever so much easier than getting it back once it's gone.
Yes...remember Sinclair Lewis's prediction that "If fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
OT
Marjorie Traitor Greene lost a SCOTUS bid to overturn mask fines worth $100k. She's been told to cough up the dough.
EDIT to get dollar amount right.
First World Problems: when you can afford to appeal a $100 fine all the way up to SCOTUS because you're butthurt about having to wear a bit of cloth on your face 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.
It is not a bit of "cloth," it's a face diaper! Just ask ron deNazi.
"Face diaper" is exactly what that mouth needs, to catch all the shit that comes out of it.
Trump's would have to be the size of a basketball.
Or a 𝘣𝘢𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨.
Stuff all of MAGA into a Bag of Holding.
Cast Ice-9 into bag.
Close bag.
(Let's see who gets that reference.)
Tu veux dire un terrain de golf ?
That's one way to fertilize it.
Preferably one of the big sand traps.
kkkons NEED face diapers. I got Covid early on because of neighbors "...bathed in the blood of jeezy."
Damn! I left the k off. It's a hundred thousand dollars.
Well, then let me issue my own correction:
First World Problems: When you prefer a $100k fine to being a reasonable adult because you're butthurt over having to wear a bit of cloth on your face 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶.
;)
I could swear I typed $100k originally. I remember seeing it as I typed.
There is a disturbingly large number of judges, many of them appointed by the republicans Dear Leader, gawd and Master, who seem to believe that religious bigotry should excuse virtually any behavior--even criminal behavior.
In a case concerning car break ins, I was dismissed because I answered yes, my car had been broken into in the past. I might be biased.
They ask if people can give an impartial view, overt racists are dismissed.
HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT FROM, SAY, DISMISSING A PROSPECTIVE JURY MEMBER WHO'S A MEMBER OF THE KKK IF THE DEFENDANT IS BLACK???
Because about a third of the country thinks homophobia is morality, about a sixth are 'out of sight, out of mind' homophobes, another six don't care about the homophobes, they're just afraid they'll be discriminated against for being Christian if homophobes are 'discriminated' against.
This needs fixing. Everyone is a citizen deserving equal and same rights to exist and live.
How dare you promote anti white racism ?! You... You wokeist !
Yep. I was a juror on a murder case and two people were excused for racism. Some speculated they just wanted to get out of being a juror but anyone with eyeballs and half a brain could tell it was the real deal.
Did they really see being thought of as racists seem the better option in getting out of jury duty?
Lol, they tried to be quiet and on the down low about it but the attorney conducting voir dire was having none of that. And we all got to hear it unless one was sitting too far back.
Of course, they're coming for Obergefell. We knew that when "I like beer" was confirmed.
What happens when they go after Loving? How's Uncle Thomas going to choke THAT down? Does he think his status as a SCOTUS judge will protect him?
Thomas is on the repeal “Loving” bandwagon, despite his marriage. He’s on the court to carry water for the GOP, it’s what made him rich. His position and wealth are supposed to protect him from any consequences, though you and I know they won’t.
Why am I not surprised that Thomas the 'House Negro' is kissing up? What does he care about his brothers and sisters toiling away in the fields? He sees himself as superior to them. He'll learn the hard way that he is not.
When Thomas looks in a mirror, he sees a white man looking back at him.
Yup. Too bad for him that he's the only one who sees it. Does he really think that rich whites like Harlan Crow lavished expensive vacations on him (which he paid no taxes on) because they like him and that they're somehow his friends? They expect something in return (bet their servants are people of color).
What does he care? He'll probably be dead by the time the leopards get around to 𝘩𝘪𝘴 face.
Justice Three-Fifths is "married" to a white whore. When do the lynchings commence?
She'll be seen by the lunatic reichwing as a race traitor.
He and Ginny will retire to the French Riveria once Trump wins the WH and Senate. (Or just abolishes the Senate)
Trump would be in the Executive Branch while the Senate is in the Legislative Branch. Those checks and balances we're supposed to have. Let's not give Trump any more power than he would actually have.
Even if he tries, SCOTUS will slap him down. Back when he was squatting in the WH, he decided he couldn't be prosecuted for any crimes he'd commit while he was in office. SCOTUS, his own 3 picks included, ruled against him unanimously.
I would not be confident they ruled against him because it was the right thing to do but because for at least 5 of them, the idea that a Democrat president could use the same argument is unbearable.
That's what gives me hope that the SC will tell him to go pound sand with his immunity claim.
And if they don't, then Dark Brandon should have him immediately killed.
Are you really confident that they will continue to rule against him? Especially since he is going to declare himself king if he gets back in?
God Emperor, not king.
I see what you dune here.
He wouldn't change his name to Leto II; he'd refuse to be 2nd to anyone, even though he is a walking pile of number 2.
My argument is that people give Trump more power than he really has. SCOTUS did rule against him on a number of occasions when he was POTUS. He can try to make himself a king if he somehow gets back in (he still trails Biden currently). Let's see how that would go.
People were so afraid of Trump back in 2020 they were sure he was going to cheat his way to the top. He lost both the popular vote (again) and the electoral vote. They worried for nothing. They think he's going to win at everything when the reality is that he keeps losing. Every time he opens his mouth, he loses more (he's certainly losing one appeal after the other).
I possess no powers of clairvoyance. I just wish people would stop making Orangey untouchable and more than he is.
I just worry because I know that many of his minions got themselves onto local election boards in the swing states. I'm afraid they're going to cheat for him the way they claimed the Democrats cheated in 2020.
IIRC Thomas has already said that Loving was wrongly decided. As cdbunch points out, he doesn't care because he expects his wealth and status will protect him from the removal of rights he currently enjoys.
I mean, this is the whole issue with abortion and now IVF foetus personhood too, right? The upper class is happy to restrict it, because they know that they can afford a workaround if/when they personally need it. The list of Republican pro-life politicians who have privately gotten their daughters, wives, etc. abortions, is long.
"Thomas has already said that Loving was wrongly decided."
Source please.
ericc is in error. Thomas explicitly OMITTED Loving when he spoke of Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. He believed THOSE were wrongly decided but made no mention of Loving.