Clarence Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, laid out a vision that prompted concerns about what other rights could ...

In ruling that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, he said, the court overturned a longstanding precedent. But “that promise didn’t last,” he said, noting that on Thursday, the court issued a major decision expanding gun rights. Lawrence O. Gostin, a professor at Georgetown University Law School who specializes in public health law, said it would be “easy to dismiss Thomas as a lone wolf” and to do so would be a mistake. Then, he said, after “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions” protected the rights they established. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry. This kind of language is just what advocates for reproductive rights and for L.G.B.T.Q. rights have been fearing.

In a 2010 voicemail, nearly 20 years after the contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearing of her husband, Thomas asked Hill to apologize for "what [she] ...

In 1991, Hill became the center of contentious confirmation hearings for Thomas after an FBI report about her accusations was leaked to the press. There was no background for it." "I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband," Ginni Thomas said in the voicemail, People reported.

However, the majority opinion clearly said Friday's ruling only applied to abortion access. Constitutional law expert Daniel Farbman told WBZ-TV the abortion ...

BOSTON -- An opinion written by the nation's longest-serving justice is raising concerns that the high court could revisit other key cases. He said the court had a duty to correct the precedents. For the Supreme Court to review these other decisions, a state would have to test them by creating a law that bans contraceptives or same-sex marriage.

Abortion no longer is a federal right with Roe v. Wade overturned. Supreme Court Justice Thomas now is eyeing cases related to gay rights and birth control.

Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. '[I]n future cases," he says, 'we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.' " the dissent noted. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawerence v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and Obergefell v.

Remember when abortion was freely available in the 1800s? Neither does conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“Justice Thomas… explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception. Wealthier white women with access to doctors continued to have abortions in the shadows though. Wade previously determined abortion did because of a woman’s right to privacy. As part of the Supreme Court’s Friday decision to overturn Roe v. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right,” Thomas wrote. Up until the late-19th century, newspapers published bulletins for the procedure and companies sold drugs to induce them.

Justice Clarence Thomas argued in a concurring opinion released on Friday that the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to ...

The right to marry the person you love.” “This [is an] extreme and dangerous path the court is now taking us on.” The constitutional right to abortion “does not stand alone,” the three justices wrote. Of those in the majority on Friday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh came closest to rejecting Thomas’ position, although without mentioning him by name. The right to use birth control. A whole range of rights,” President Joe Biden said of the draft opinion at the time.

Thomas has always done his work with admirable candor. He tells us where the Court is headed. With five conservative justices on the bench, we should take ...

Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception." In Dobbs, Alito goes to some lengths to say that the decision applies only to abortion and not to any other subject. Thomas knows this, and so do the three dissenters in the case, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. This trio knows, as Thomas knows, that the Court has new targets in its sights. (Obergefell is not as directly based on privacy rights, but marriage is also not mentioned in the Constitution and thus, by Alito's standard, undeserving of the Court's protection.) To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. As Alito writes for the majority, "the Constitution makes no reference to abortion." Like Roe, the Court's decisions in Griswold (the contraception case) and Lawrence (the consensual sex case) are explicitly based on the constitutional right to privacy -- which Dobbs suggests does not exist. Trump, when running for President, understood the centrality of the Court -- and the overturning of Roe v. What else are the five in the Dobbs majority going to do? The main reason to believe Thomas is that he has the votes. Now, of course, the question becomes ... a majority for what else? Wade and the enshrinement of abortion rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas sits with conservative activist Virginia Thomas, his wife, while he waits to speak at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, ...

The equal protection clause says a state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” At its core, the equal protection clause is an anti-discrimination clause. His writings are based on his interpretation of what that clause of the Constitution was designed to accomplish. He did suggest that the Court should undertake additional analyses if it desired — as he suggested it should desire — to strip away the substantive due process rights enshrined in current case law. The Supreme Court has long said that the equal protection clause bans the government from creating a “suspect class” or “ regulated class” of people based on characteristics such as religion, race, alienage, or ancestry. And that’s the holding of Loving: Americans have a right to be free of government racial classifications. The majority holding in Dobbs examined both the equal protection clause and the so-called “substantive due process clause.” The right to obtain an abortion could not be extrapolated from either of those two clauses, according to the majority. Other sources, by contrast, suggest that “due process of law” prohibited legislatures “from authorizing the deprivation of a person’s life, liberty, or property without providing him the customary procedures to which freemen were entitled by the old law of England.” Either way, the Due Process Clause at most guarantees process. Thomas didn’t sketch the precise outlines of his personal equal protection views in Dobbs, but he did mention in another abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. A predictable chorus of critics has risen to excoriate Justice Clarence Thomas for — in the chorus’s view — hypocritically excluding a case that established a constitutional right to interracial marriage from a list of constitutional rights Thomas believes should be overturned along with Roe v. Those rights, according to Thomas, include nothing but a guarantee of a mechanical and regimented governmental process — nothing more. Virginia (1967) — is based on an entirely separate clause of the Constitution than the cases Thomas said should be overturned. That’s probably why Thomas didn’t include interracial marriage in the list of rights he envisions on the constitutional law chopping block.

In his concurring opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas also took aim at the rights to contraception and same-sex marriage.

Wade was built on the idea that there is no right to privacy, but all of these other cases are grounded in the same right. “This is a conservative majority on the court flexing its muscles and that seems to care very little about public opinion or the court’s legitimacy.” In his concurring opinion, Thomas targeted three other cases that hinged on that same legal reasoning: Griswold v.

Samuel L. Jackson addressed Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion on same-sex marriage and contraception after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage, said it was “quite telling” that Thomas didn’t refer to Loving v. Numerous public figures have voiced criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide. In his tweet, Jackson included an apparent reference to Thomas’ own interracial marriage to wife Ginni Thomas, whom he wed in 1987.

In a 2010 voicemail, nearly 20 years after the contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearing of her husband, Thomas asked Hill to apologize for "what [she] ...

You can select 'Manage settings' for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls. Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. Click here to find out more about our partners. - Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address

The actor pointed out how a trend of rolling back significant civil rights decisions wouldn't fare well for Justice Thomas and his marriage.

From Megan Thee Stallion to Ariana DeBose, to Cher, many have expressed their frustration at the biggest rollback of abortion rights in the US in decades. What Jackson appears to be specifically referring to is that Justice Clarence Thomas, who is one of the judges that voted for the overruling of the judgement and has suggested he would like to overturn other civil rights cases, is in an interracial marriage. It’s a case that was also important for supporting the legal case for gay marriage in Obergefell v Hodges.

Actor Samuel L. Jackson criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice Clarence Thomas on social media Saturday, asking how 'Uncle Clarence' felt about Loving v.

You can select 'Manage settings' for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls. Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. Click here to find out more about our partners. - Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address

Conservative justice says protections for gay rights, same-sex marriage and contraception should be reconsidered.

Former U.S. Senator Al Franken criticized a statement from Justice Clarence Thomas who said the U.S. Supreme Court should revisit other cases after ...

"Today’s decision is the culmination of a 50-year project by GOP operatives, religious fundamentalists, billionaire oligarchs, & right-wing media," he added in yet another tweet. Connecticut in 1965, Lawrence v. Jackson Women’s Health opinion that the court "should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Texas in 2003, and Obergefell v. Franken resigned from the U.S. Senate in December 2017, amid accusations of sexual misconduct. The tweet was in reference to Thomas saying on the 119th page of the Dobbs v.