Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

plimsoll

(1,654 posts)
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 10:19 AM Jun 2022

So Bret presented this chestnut.

Kavanaugh highlights Loving and other important substantive due process in assuring the public that today’s majority decision in Dobbs leaves them untouched. “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,” Kavanaugh wrote.


Maybe a smart person can explain to me why Mr. Kavanaugh should be taken at his word?
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

FBaggins

(26,597 posts)
8. Changing their take on substantive due process wouldn't get rid of Loving
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 10:26 AM
Jun 2022

It rests at least as much on the Equal Protection Clause.

Of course... so do most of the others listed.

plimsoll

(1,654 posts)
9. Well, Loving's probably safe.
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 10:49 AM
Jun 2022

As long as Thomas is alive. He may be crooked as hell, but he's not going to place himself in legal jeopardy.

haele

(12,553 posts)
11. Unless he wants a divorce and doesn't want to split assets.
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 10:56 AM
Jun 2022

If his marriage is null and void, he can walk away with whatever he wants, and she can find her own way. That is, until he finds himself becoming 3/5ths of a person depending on the state he lives in.

Obergefell ruling was founded on Loving. If Obergefell no longer protects non-cis marriages, then Loving no longer protects "mixed race" marriages.

Because that's where he's going with his statement.

Haele

misanthrope

(7,375 posts)
13. That would all depend on where he got married and resides
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 11:34 AM
Jun 2022

It would be easy for him to sidestep miscegenation laws. There were only 16 states where those were still on the books with Loving v. Virginia was ruled on by SCOTUS.

Plus, as we saw with the federal government's rush to protect SCOTUS judges from being exposed to protests, Thomas is part of the ruling elite. They have different laws and a different reality in a nation that ridiculously maintains itself as inherently class-free.

 

Tomconroy

(7,611 posts)
7. Clarence Thomas said the opposite although he omitted
Fri Jun 24, 2022, 10:22 AM
Jun 2022

Loving from the list of substantive due process cases he would overule.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So Bret presented this ch...