LogFAQs > #980005754

deoxxys posted...

Sure they do it when somebody is trying to infer they aren't.

Pro-choice people are not pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. And advocates for women are especially aware of, and sensitive to, the language that "pro-abortion" would imply.

deoxxys posted...

My absurd post was in response to one person who started talking about how next they were going to repeal gay marriage or make interracial couples illegal.

They are.

Here, because the majority decision declined to address this issue [of basic Constitutional, if not human, rights], Thomas wrote separately to encourage them to:

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," Ramos v. Louisiana(THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment)we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States(2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring).After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

SOURCE: https://reason.com/2022/06/24/clarence-thomas-calls-to-reconsider-gay-marriage-sodomy-rulings/

And I fucking hate Reason, but even they see what this direct quote directly implies.

The Thomas Court is willing to do what Republicans have been salivating over since the lavender scare: outlawing lgbt people.

Don't fucking act like it's irrational or an overreaction. He knows what he's saying, and it's not the first time either side has taken the opportunity to use an opinion saying, "We're ready to solve this issue if you find us the right case."