Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution'

[Independent thinker]

Someone tell this bigoted boomer the Constitution can be accessed for free from you iPhone.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

news.yahoo.com

Well, he's actually right.

 

[struth]

he clearly right…heck this website is full of people who pertain to be interested in Govt and yet show no interest in actually knowing what’s in the Constitution and instead seemingly are more interested in what folks at MSDNC or the Cuomo News Network tells them

 

[bendog]

he clearly right…heck this website is full of people who pertain to be interested in Govt and yet show no interest in actually knowing what’s in the Constitution and instead seemingly are more interested in what folks at MSDNC or the Cuomo News Network tells them

I don't agree. The fundamental right to privacy existed for nearly 70 years. People are not somehow ignorant in think the govt has no power to tell them what contraceptives to use or with whom they can have sex. They may not have any interest in how 9 Justices who have little in common with them get to that belief, but that's not really the issue.

EP didn't protect interracial marriages until the SC actually reversed precedent because civilized people didn't want to treat blacks unequally anymore. The fundamental right to marry is not mentioned in the const, but it hasn't been disputed. Five or Six Justices (Gorsuch and Roberts are ?) think that this same result should not apply to gay people. Most people don't see the govt having any reason to interfer. I think they understand the const perfectly well.

At the time of the Founding, no laws prohibited abortion before quickening. Alito acknoweledged that, yet somehow found states have a power to do just that. People understand exactly what theorcrats and the Five are up to. And that's what Thomas objects to.

 

[struth]

I don't agree. The fundamental right to privacy existed for nearly 70 years. People are not somehow ignorant in think the govt has no power to tell them what contraceptives to use or with whom they can have sex. They may not have any interest in how 9 Justices who have little in common with them get to that belief, but that's not really the issue.

EP didn't protect interracial marriages until the SC actually reversed precedent because civilized people didn't want to treat blacks unequally anymore. The fundamental right to marry is not mentioned in the const, but it hasn't been disputed. Five or Six Justices (Gorsuch and Roberts are ?) think that this same result should not apply to gay people. Most people don't see the govt having any reason to interfer. I think they understand the const perfectly well.

At the time of the Founding, no laws prohibited abortion before quickening. Alito acknoweledged that, yet somehow found states have a power to do just that. People understand exactly what theorcrats and the Five are up to. And that's what Thomas objects to.

Your post is a great example highlighting what Thomas was saying.

 

[bendog]

Your post is a great example highlighting what Thomas was saying.

Intentionally so. Elites tend to show they're out of touch when the say 'oh you don't understand."

People understand very well that they don't think states can legitimately ban abortion before 15 weeks or so. In Griswold, only 2 Justices found the state had a valid interest, but there were at least two alternative views to where a right to privacy came from. IF you need to go back more then 70 years, you may have a problem.

 

[struth]

Intentionally so. Elites tend to show they're out of touch when the say 'oh you don't understand."

People understand very well that they don't think states can legitimately ban abortion before 15 weeks or so. In Griswold, only 2 Justices found the state had a valid interest, but there were at least two alternative views to where a right to privacy came from. IF you need to go back more then 70 years, you may have a problem.

well, yes, you dont understand....they have doctorates of law and years of experience. You want there to simply be something or a certain result.

If people don't want states to ban abortion prior to 15 weeks they can elect people that will do that.

Griswold had nothing to do with abortions. It had to do with birth control, and the holding in the case said that the Govt couldn't keep married couples from buying contrceptives.

 

[bendog]

well, yes, you dont understand....they have doctorates of law and years of experience. You want there to simply be something or a certain result.

If people don't want states to ban abortion prior to 15 weeks they can elect people that will do that.

Griswold had nothing to do with abortions. It had to do with birth control, and the holding in the case said that the Govt couldn't keep married couples from buying contrceptives.

Actually not, lol. But the legitimacy of the Sup Ct lies in ordinary citizens believing their opinions reflect what the law should be .. under the constitution. And we do evolve as a society. I doubt more than a very small minority would excuse a president ignoring a Sup Ct decision and to go ahead and take land from indigenous people. And people are not stupid for noticing that what the Sup Ct said about gay and interracial marriage ... simply changed despite no change in the const.

The one difference here is simply a right to privacy. You or I may not agree, and I'd even say Goldberg was right in Griswold, but how the due process clause (and equal protection) as they were construed at the time, hamstrung the majority, so ... it was what it was. But IF like Thomas you think the states have any power to regulate contraception to promote some morality ... good luck with that.

Probably it comes down to how we, and others, view the significance of the most vocal voters in more socially conservative state. Even in Miss, a maj believe women should be able to have abortions early in term. Alito views there not being a historical consensus that would give even stare decisis legitimacy to Roe. Imo his views are extreme and based in a religion few of us see as anything besides an anachronism. But to legitimize his view, he has to ignore the fact that the result of Roe should be affirmed under equal protection. And appellate courts absolutely have the power to uphold laws based on alternative theories that aren't even raised by litigants.

 

[bendog]

well, yes, you dont understand....they have doctorates of law and years of experience. You want there to simply be something or a certain result.

If people don't want states to ban abortion prior to 15 weeks they can elect people that will do that.

Griswold had nothing to do with abortions. It had to do with birth control, and the holding in the case said that the Govt couldn't keep married couples from buying contrceptives.

Griswold was the right to privacy case upon which Blackmun's roe opinion relied upon. Both stand for the proposition that people have reproductive rights legislators couldn't abridge.

 

[maybelooking]

Someone tell this bigoted boomer the Constitution can be accessed for free from you iPhone.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

news.yahoo.com

no doubt all those zombie leftists walking around staring down at their phone are reading the Constitution!!!! LMAO.

 

[struth]

Griswold was the right to privacy case upon which Blackmun's roe opinion relied upon. Both stand for the proposition that people have reproductive rights legislators couldn't abridge.

Griswold stated married people have a right to privacy in their marital relationship

 

[HenryBHough]

Will Xiden's Ministry of Truth have enough staff to listen to all cell phones? Or will he have to open the borders wider to get them. But how, then, can any conversations NOT in Spanish be monitored?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Someone tell this bigoted boomer the Constitution can be accessed for free from you iPhone.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

news.yahoo.com

You're right. You can access the Constitution. Not only that, but you can also access various interpretations of it and find something that goes along with what you THINK it should say. And, you can also find many other people who will parrot or say out loud what you think the Constitution should say, even if it doesn't really say that. A very good example of that right now in this country is the various discussions (arguments) that occur on these very boards about what the 2nd says. Both sides think their version is the correct one, and they can find many who agree with them, whether or not their interpretation is correct.

And yeah, people ARE more interested in their smart phones because they can find others out there to agree with them, further solidifying their thought that they are correct, even if they aren't. To actually understand what the Constitution says requires one to read it, think about it, look at the way things in this country have evolved over the years, and see where it applies, and where things need to be changed or modified. The Constitution has been changed over the years due to changing conditions in this country (that's why there have been amendments to it). Unfortunately, doing the work and actually seeing how it applies today takes much more work and thinking than most are wanting to do nowadays, they just wanna find someone or something to agree with them and then hammer anyone who disagrees with the stuff they found on the 'net.

When the 'net first came into widespread use, I was hopeful that people would become smarter, because they would have all this knowledge at their fingertips. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case, because instead of learning about stuff, they simply look for something to uphold what they already think, even if it's wrong.

 

[ABikerSailor]

He's damn sure not wrong.....I mean there they are with the info of the ages at their fingertips and they are still dumber than a bag of hammers and retain hardly anything of what they might glean.

You know, I ran into some of that thinking when I was looking to buy a car, and several times I checked out cars from private buyers. When I asked them basic mechanic stuff, they looked at me mystified as to how I knew this. I told them it was things I learned growing up, and kept the knowledge because it was useful (how to change oil, checking the fluids on the engine, etc.) One of the guys told me he didn't need to remember anything like that because he could simply look it up on the 'net, and the 'net would "remember" the knowledge for him, all he needed to do was Google it. I told them that yeah, Google is good for finding out stuff initially, but you still needed a basic knowledge, as some of the "experts" out there really didn't know what they were doing, they just wanted to make a video that got likes. I've seen quite a bit of stuff like that on Facebook, where people tell you they have this great idea for stuff, but all they really do is talk a lot without providing any real information, but ham it up a lot for the camera to get likes. Matter of fact, some of that "good information" can actually do serious damage to what you might want to fix, so be careful.

 

[SC Patriot]

Someone tell this bigoted boomer the Constitution can be accessed for free from you iPhone.

Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution': book

When Thomas was asked whether the Supreme Court served to protect liberties, he said the nine-member body was only "one part of the effort," a new book says.

news.yahoo.com

Actually, only opinions come up for the first 10 pages.

Genius.

 

[bendog]

Griswold stated married people have a right to privacy in their marital relationship

Come on laddy.

Either you're not a lawyer or you're just obfuscatingto the point of lying. WE're done

Roe relied upon the "penumbra" of rights including a right to privacy which were found in griswold.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system. 381 US 486

IF Alito wanted to be honest, simply say there's still a penumbra of unenumerated rights including privacy but it doesn't include abortion, but he didn't. And you're no better.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What he is bitching about is not as clear cut as he wants to make out. Can one legitimately take his position? Yes. Can one take "privacy" to mean it's no one's business? Yes.

Is it reasonable to subpoena a woman's medical record because you suspect something? If you believe a seperate human life was taken, perhaps so. If you do not, then not really.

I really find it funny when people start talking about privacy, especially when they have cell phones with a whole bunch of apps to make their life easier. Funny thing about those aps, they don't really rob you of your privacy, you willingly give it up so you can have something cool that appears to be convenient for you. Use Amazon because of all the stuff they have that you can have sent directly to your house? Great, now they know where you live, what you like, what your shopping habits are, as well as what your bank account is and how much you have. Like Google Maps? Great, now they know where you are at everywhere you take your phone with you, as well as where you've been and (likely) what you were doing there. Like messenger apps? Now they know who you know, who you associate with the most, and what you are talking about.

Sorry, but privacy in this day and age, especially if you use a smart phone, is an illusion at best. There are many things I would like to use, but still won't, because they ask for too much information from me, and I don't want to share it with the whole world. I like having some sense of privacy, even though I know my life really isn't. Only way I could do that is to go completely off the grid, and I don't want to, as I like some of the convenience offered by being on it.

 

[struth]

Come on laddy.

Either you're not a lawyer or you're just obfuscatingto the point of lying. WE're done

Roe relied upon the "penumbra" of rights including a right to privacy which were found in griswold.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights-older than our political parties, older than our school system. 381 US 486

IF Alito wanted to be honest, simply say there's still a penumbra of unenumerated rights including privacy but it doesn't include abortion, but he didn't. And you're no better.

what do you think i am lying about?

 

[Rogue AI]

An unreasonable search is derived from a right to privacy. 4th Amendment.

Yet the 4th was not cited in Griswold or Roe.

 

[pknopp]

I really find it funny when people start talking about privacy, especially when they have cell phones with a whole bunch of apps to make their life easier.

The person selling car warranties can't toss me in jail.

Funny thing about those aps, they don't really rob you of your privacy, you willingly give it up so you can have something cool that appears to be convenient for you. Use Amazon because of all the stuff they have that you can have sent directly to your house? Great, now they know where you live, what you like, what your shopping habits are, as well as what your bank account is and how much you have. Like Google Maps? Great, now they know where you are at everywhere you take your phone with you, as well as where you've been and (likely) what you were doing there. Like messenger apps? Now they know who you know, who you associate with the most, and what you are talking about.

Sorry, but privacy in this day and age, especially if you use a smart phone, is an illusion at best. There are many things I would like to use, but still won't, because they ask for too much information from me, and I don't want to share it with the whole world. I like having some sense of privacy, even though I know my life really isn't. Only way I could do that is to go completely off the grid, and I don't want to, as I like some of the convenience offered by being on it.

Let me know when Amazon has you arrested.

 

[pknopp]

Yet the 4th was not cited in Griswold or Roe.

All the same what I said is true. Does that make RvW something the courts can uphold? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying privacy is in the Constitution.