I hope so.
“WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court heard arguments in December over the fate of the constitutional right to abortion, it was already clear that other rights, notably including same-sex marriage, could be at risk if the court overruled Roe v. Wade.
The logic of that legal earthquake, Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicted, would produce a jurisprudential tsunami that could sweep away other precedents, too.
The justices’ questions on the broader consequences of a decision eliminating the right to abortion were probing but abstract and conditional. The disclosure last Monday of a draft opinion that would overturn Roe, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, has made those questions urgent and concrete.
The opinion, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., provided conflicting signals about its sweep and consequences. On the one hand, he asserted, in a sort of disclaimer that struck a defensive tone, that other rights would remain secure.
“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
On the other hand, the logic of the opinion left plenty of room for debate.
It said a right to abortion cannot be found in the Constitution or inferred from its provisions. The same could be said, using the draft opinion’s general reasoning, for contraception, gay intimacy and same-sex marriage, rights established by three Supreme Court decisions that were discussed at some length in the argument in December. …”
…”
I would like to see Brown, Loving, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell go next. I suspect that affirmative action though will be the next domino to fall. It is overdue.
Fuck marriage under this system. You give control of your children to the county you live in.
It should be illegal on the federal level. If left up to the states, the blue states will perform it just like abortion. Federal law at times should trump state law, especially when it comes to morality issues.
Yes, it would also deepen polarization. Libtards would self deport and have an incentive not to move here
1) YES!
https://tv.gab.com/channel/realredelephants/view/god-wins-scotus-to-overturn-abortion-6271ded6ccf48b0aa5f147c5
2) Romans 1:32- the next step.
Public stoning of sodomites.
3) Federal law has to become GOD’S LAW.
Theonomy, IOW.
“The Law-Order of humanism leads only to anarchy. Lacking absolutes, a humanistic law-order tolerates everything which denies absolutes while warring against biblical faith.” North, Political Polytheism, p. 691.
” The Framers at the Constitutional Convention issued a death warrant against Christianity….the death sentence was officially delivered by the Fourteenth Amendment. It has been carried out with escalating enthusiasm since the 1950’s…To admit the historical truth of 1787-89 would mean that a restoration of so-called “original American Constitutionalism” would change nothing covenantally. The nation would still rest judicially on an APOSTATE COVENANT. [Why?] The text [of the Constitution] categorically prohibits the imposition of the biblical covenant oath in civil law. Let us put it covenantally: what the text of the U.S. Constitution prohibits is covenantal Christianity…. this worldwide legal transformation is the crisis of Western Civilization…” North, Political Polytheism, pp. 691-92,94.
“””….affirmative action though will be the next domino to fall….”””
Bad plan. This will rally whole diversity into enemy camp at the moment anti communist forces need them most.
Diversity is also very effective when peaceful protests are needed. Chechens in Ukraine are great example.
“””….affirmative action though will be the next domino to fall….”””
Bad plan. This will rally whole diversity into enemy camp at the moment anti communist forces need them most.
Zero chance you can ever depend on large numbers of blacks to break with the left. They give them free stuff and they KNOW their whole position in life is artificial and dependent on the left to stay in power. They are a lot smarter than Maximillian who didn’t get that the French soldiers where the reason he was the so called “Emperor of Mexico.” The blacks know their reality is fake, doesn’t matter what Trump says about “Platinum Plan” and loving blacks, they are scared to death of the normal whites he is able to rally. Best to concentrate on peeling a sizable chunk of Hispanics away from the left as they really hate the cultural toxic professional managerial class and their agenda of impoverishing us to purchase green indulgences, turning black scoundrels free to commit crimes, and the whole lexicon of queer crap. They just want a raise and not to worry about getting deported.
The NYT and the rest of the scumbag press is tacitly admitting that gay (so-called) “marriage” and all the so-called “Civil Rights” legislation since WWII is illegitimate by acknowledging it can all be repealed with the correct Supreme Court in place.
If abortion were on a sound legal footing it would not be so easily overturned, it would probably take a constitutional amendment. This is the conclusion to be drawn from all the hysteria and tears from The Usual Suspects; they know their rule is illegitimate and cannot withstand scrutiny.
Their Tower of Babel will fall.
Cambria as first witness:
“That which must be said is not said by any political party nor is it permitted to be said in any public venue: Negro worship, which is the state religion of the United States is the worship of Satan.”
“How can Christian men consent to be ruled by Satan’s minions? Doesn’t that charity of honor demand that we rise and ride in defense of our people and our God? The ‘pro-lifers’ failed to procure protection for the innocents in the womb because they did not love enough to kill the baby killers. In fact, they denounced Paul Hill when he did what had to be done. So it is now with the white grazers. If we don’t love enough to kill the murderers of our people, we will perish as a people, and Satan will reign unchallenged. The Antifaers and the BLMers have made it abundantly clear that we cannot serve two masters. We can serve Satan or we can serve Christ, there is no in between despite what the purveyors of star-spangled Americanism tell us.”
– https://cambriawillnotyield.com/2020/09/05/the-war-that-has-been-thrust-upon-us/
Every one of these issues just gives Shlomo more power. Why should government regulate marriage?
When the Usual Suspects were clamoring for single sex unions, I suggested that there should be an amendment prohibiting any government from issuing or enforcing any law that defines marriage.
Now, you have to follow the money, so my idea was that government would only recognize civil unions and issue civil union permits or licenses. All prior traditional marriage licenses for male/female couples would be grandfathered into the current system and recognized as civil unions as well.
It would be up to each person and their prospective partner to choose a private institution or church to bless their union according to their religious conventions.
It’s not like two Christians are going to expect to have their vow exchange presided over by a rabbi Bob a synagogue. A gay or lesbian couple would have to find a religious institution that is okay with single sex unions and no institution of church would face a lawsuit or civil rights action for refusing to sanction any union for any reason.
Well, people on both sides of the debate loved the idea. But some black-robed idiots got a wild hair and pushed for gay marriage, I guess so the fundamentalists would be forced to marry them or face some civil rights action.
>I suspect that affirmative action though will be the next domino to fall.
Perhaps — but doing so would be a rebuke to justices and former justices who are still alive, whereas all those sitting on the Court for the Roe decision are dead.
Recently the ABA came out in favor of dropping the LSAT — as I said before, given the sheer amount of admitting and hiring that goes on, as well as the confidential nature of those activities, it will be difficult to enforce a de jure prohibition on affirmative action — in this light, the ABA’s recommendation can be seen as a measure to make it harder to detect bias in law school admissions.
If I remember correctly, affirmative action was supposed to be on life support until the 2020s. Sandra Day O’Connor said something to that effect back in the 2000s in one of the key rulings on it when I was in college. It is already on life support.
> Sandra Day O’Connor said something to that effect back in the 2000s …
Yes, that was her famously idiotic majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger, which perfectly reflected the ruling elite’s grotesque dishonesty about the reality of race.
Times up
Last time I read the Constitution, it did not give any expiration date upon which the Federal government was required to stop discriminating against whites and in favor of Negroes. (It DID, however, set a date of 1808 whereupon Congress could ban the slave trade from Africa).
Under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the state governments must be race-neutral. However, the Equal Protection Clause does NOT apply to the Federal government.
So after the Civil War the Federals forced the states to treat Negroes equally, but the Federal government was NOT required to treat whites equally.
How convenient…
I like how the MSNBC talking heads are in knots about the “slippery slope” that until 2 weeks ago they said did g exist lol
They used the Supreme Court as a battering ram from 1945 until 2021
Many Republicans and right leaning independents have been cowed into a pro gay marriage position after the Obergefell decision. However, in private, they still have the anti-gay marriage views, they just fear losing their job if they speak out, or other social consequences. The polls may show this is a 70% issue, but it’s definitely close to a 50/50 one, especially if SCOTUS overturns the decision. People just need permission from people with authority to express their real views on the matter. Hopefully Roe is the first of many decisions that are overturned.
I agree. California voters in 2008 approved of a ballot measure banning gay marriage. In 2008, Obama beat McCain to win his first term as President, winning California by almost double the number of voters. California went from red to blue in 1992 and hasn’t gone back.
If California voters in 2008 wanted gay marriage banned, then I doubt the states in the South and the Midwest have changed much in the last 14 years on that issue. Homosexuality is only tolerated among normies and conservatives to the extent that they shut the fuck up and keep their disgusting lifestyle to themselves, away from the public eye. Their complete and total failure to do that – now they want to indoctrinate our children into their perversions – has caused significant internal resentment, which, given the chance to express itself, will result in a rare Right Wing shift in the Overton Window.
Watching that 1973 news broadcast, it made me think, perhaps we’re less cucked than our recent ancestors are. Sure, there’s all sorts of degeneracy and whatnot going on today, but those born in the first what 20 years of the 20th century in positions of power were making all sorts of retarded rulings and the people kind of passively accepted them. It’s even worse when you look back and realize all the anti-racism stuff started in the 1940s.
“Peak America” was all about prepping America for the degeneracy, while “Degenerate America” is actually trying to fight back. How is a closeted homosexual who goes on a date with a guy who dresses as a cat and puts dildos in his mouth MORE in favour of Christian values than the Supreme Court of the 1960s and 70s? How come more and more average people are willing to say “bring it” to leftist violence?
I’m starting to think the Boomers were right about some of the values they called their parents or grandparents generation out for. These people were finger waving cowards who loved the trappings of Western civilization but lived merely in the shadow of it and when the chips were down, said “it can’t be helped”.
Now I know there was some backlash and not every single person was like that, but wow. It’s easier to find a man in the declining empire of America, who looks and acts worse than any hippy, that has actual sincere Christian, Pro-White values, than it seems large swathes of America back then. Especially when you look at the divorce rates from post-ww2.
That may sound blackpilling, but I find it heartening. We’re living in an era where people are actually looking for sincerity again and are throwing out false superficiality. The kind of era where Great men are produced. That the ugliness found on display from your average White person isn’t a love and embrace of sin but a coping mechanism in the search for something meaningful.
Liberal Modernism does seem to be breaking.
Much to the chagrin of the colorblind AmNats, America needs to cease to exist. At the federal and many state level, it is an pernicious, malevolent, and malignant cancer that spreads to the four corners of the earth. The cabal that controls America in a sane nation would be locked away in prisons for the criminally insane, instead they are at the helm of international jewry’s most powerful golem ever.
Establishment elites have will turn this country and its vassal Western nations into nightmarish realities of “Camp of the Saints,” Bravo New World,” and “1984.”
Those that still are under the delusional belief that the Founder’s idea of America can be reinstated into this Frankfurt School social engineered Frankenstein monster are getting high on their supply of hopium.
May we or our descendants build from the ashes of this heinous monstrosity build nations that reject liberalism in all its forms, and institutionalizes natural law as its cornerstone.
Maybe the alphabet community should be allowed to marry, so long as they’re hetero, trans, female indentifing , part binary, bi – male and not straight out gay binary! 😉
Hey Hunter, speaking of slippery slopes, what are you going to say when the state comes to take your child because you are a “racist” and therefore unfit to raise children?
Where in the Constitution is it spelled out that racists have a right to raise children? You’d better hope it’s in there somewhere.
Lexi,
If you don’t have a right to life, why couldn’t the state just kill you?
I notice, Hunter, that you didn’t answer my question, presumably because you have no answer and you really haven’t thought through the implications of your claim that the only rights we have are the ones that somebody thought to write down.
Anyway, to answer your question, the 5th Amendment guarantees a right to life to “persons,” the question being precisely when a person comes into being.
This has been controversial throughout history. Contra your claim that abortion is “applied modernism” or whatever, infanticide was rife before the advent of modern birth control, for the simple reason that it was necessary to prevent mass starvation. Recognizing this fact, the authorities looked the other way until someone came up with the ridiculous idea that unbaptized infants go to hell.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/440876#:~:text='%20After%20Christianization%2C%20infanticide%20was%20regarded,penance%20for%20seven%20years%20…
Thankfully, life in our times is much less “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” than it was in the past, with the vast majority of abortions occurring early in a pregnancy. You might wish there were no abortion at all, but that is not going to happen. I doubt this horrible precedent will do much of anything at all to save unborn life, especially White unborn life. Women will simply go to a state that allows it to get an abortion there.
Meanwhile, I would be very surprised if the Left didn’t use this precedent to harass White conservatives who homeschool or send their children to Christian schools, if only out of spite. (The right to direct the education of your children isn’t spelled out in the Constitution either.) Indeed, the thought has occurred to me that this is happening now precisely to lay the groundwork for a crackdown on the Deplorables. If that thought hasn’t occurred to you, Hunter, you have learned nothing from the disastrous consequences of the Charlottesville debacle.
I’m at work.
I don’t have much time right now. Just approving comments.
>Where in the Constitution is it spelled out that racists have a right to raise children?
Obviously, not everything is ‘spelled out’ in the Constitution — in fact, as time goes by the Supreme Court is having to wring more and more implausible ‘rights’ from the Constitution, interpreting it in modern contexts that the authors could never have envisioned; this is why nominations to the Supreme Court are so highly politicized — the situation has been absurd for a long time now.
Why be childish? — you are clearly intelligent enough to argue in a more reasonable way.
“Why be childish? — you are clearly intelligent enough to argue in a more reasonable way.”
Thanks, but disagree with you that the Court is “having to wring more and more implausible rights from the Constitution.” I don’t think there is anything implausible at all about the idea that the Constitution protects something like a “right to privacy.” If you read the substantive due process cases, you might find them more persuasive than you think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)#:~:text=By%20analogy%2C%20rights%20that%20exist,is%20known%20as%20penumbral%20reasoning.
There is a serious danger that the erosion of substantive due procould put the final nail in the coffin of the First Amendment that our betters so desperately wish to destroy. If your kids can be taken away from you for saying things the government doesn’t like, it’s over.
I don’t think there is anything implausible at all about the idea that the Constitution protects something like a “right to privacy.”
I didn’t really address a ‘right to privacy’, which, perhaps you will agree, as a phrase is rather toothless in its generality — but the word ‘privacy’ does not appear in the Constitution; you can search the document for specific words here.
And I don’t see how you could possibly disagree with the following rather straightforward statement:
… in fact, as time goes by the Supreme Court is having to wring more and more implausible ‘rights’ from the Constitution, interpreting it in modern contexts that the authors could never have envisioned; …
I would perhaps change it to say specific rights, e.g. given its provenance, it’s implausible to suggest the US Constitution contains a specific right to abortion, or that such a specific right can be wrung from that document.
Sometimes it seems you just want to be argumentative.
Look, I’m not trying to be argumentative, and I’m not trying to antagonize you. You seem like a nice enough guy, but frankly, you just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, which is not surprising given that you’re a tech guy.
The Framers of the Constitution certainly understood that they couldn’t anticipate every eventuality. Hence, the glorious 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“I didn’t really address a ‘right to privacy’, which, perhaps you will agree, as a phrase is rather toothless in its generality —”
No, it’s not toothless and it’s meaning is clear. It is a term of art.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/right-to-privacy/
“it’s implausible to suggest the US Constitution contains a specific right to abortion, or that such a specific right can be wrung from that document.”
The first part of your statement is correct. The second part is not correct IMO. Suppose the government passed a law limiting each couple to one child and required mandatory birth control implants (IUDs) after a woman gives birth. If there are any 9A-protected unenumerated rights all, it is the right not to be coerced in this way. It’s come to be called the “right to privacy.” And no, it doesn’t matter that the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution, because it’s in the penumbrae, or shadow of the first, third, fourth, and ninth Amendments.
The only way to understand this is to read the cases, or at least a summation of the cases as I linked to above. You don’t have to be a lawyer to have an opinion about the Constitution, but you,do have to put a little time in to have an informed opinion about it.