# The Supreme Court isn't done: Watch and see a lot of individual rights fall **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** roe\_vs\_wade\_abortion\ **Created:** [June 25, 2022, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843 "2022-06-25T15:08:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2022, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/81 "2022-06-28T21:54:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Locrian](#): > > > > Our Supreme Court is nine idiotic theocrats. > > Count again. Okay, there are nine justices who are, _on the average_, idiotic theocrats. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2022, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/82 "2022-06-28T23:46:41Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > So the Justices you disagree with are religious nutjobs, and the ones you agree with are not. That’s a rational argument. I disagree with all religious nutjobs. Some happen to be Supreme Court justices. Nothing irrational about that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/83 "2022-06-29T00:07:47Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > So the Justices you disagree with are religious nutjobs, and the ones you agree with are not. That’s a rational argument. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with their religion. What I have a problem with are religious nutjobs who think they can tell me I have to follow their religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/84 "2022-06-29T00:10:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What I have a problem with are religious nutjobs who think they can tell me I have to follow their religious beliefs. Good thing the SCOTUS hasn’t done that, then. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/85 "2022-06-29T00:18:41Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > What I have a problem with are religious nutjobs who think they can tell me I have to follow their religious beliefs. > > Good thing the SCOTUS hasn’t done that, then. Yes, they have. The idea that a fetus is a living human being is a religious belief. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/86 "2022-06-29T00:46:16Z")
> [@DavidNRockies](#): > > This says it better than I could … > > [The Need for Supreme Court Term Limits - Center for American Progress](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/need-supreme-court-term-limits/) > > … and – IMHO – goes hand in hand with Jefferson’s view that we should revisit the Constitution once every generation: > > ['We The People': Reconstituting The Constitution : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143354018/reconstituting-the-constitution-how-to-rewrite-it) > > In the case of this thread, ISTM that the two go hand-in-hand. > > Wish in one hand, shit in the other… The problem is, if the constitution is up for grabs when the country is as divided as it is now, it’s a recipe for civil war. The last time the USA had such a divide, it was only settled by one side out-killing the other and then telling the losers “tough shit”. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/87 "2022-06-29T00:56:49Z")
That wasn’t the ruling. They said abortion regulations were up to the People via the democratic process. As it should be. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/88 "2022-06-29T01:04:02Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Clarence Thomas has already explicitly targeted these other rights: > > [Why Clarence Thomas’ opinion is the only honest concurrence in Dobbs.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/dobbs-decision-glucksberg-test-lawlessness.html) > > > Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in _Dobbs_ evinces at least the candor to call this what it is. In his _Dobbs_ concurrence, he writes that the court’s contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex marriage decisions are “demonstrably erroneous” and that “we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.” Unlike the majority, which pretends that this project stops at abortion, he acknowledges that the project merely begins there. > > Here’s the actual text from Thomas’s concurring opinion: > > [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392\_6j37.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf) > > > The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like _Griswold v. Connecticut_, … (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)\*; _Lawrence v. Texas_, … (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and _Obergefell v. Hodges_, … (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. … **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,” …, we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, … 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. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Is Thomas really just in hate with liberal progressive values, and willing to back any rationale to strike them down? Or is it that as a jurist he truly believes that substantive due process as a doctrine is logically flawed, and would be okay with the cited decisions being restored under sounder constitutional foundations? It seems to me that a lot of the criticism leveled against the current court is basically that if the court is okay with the results of its decisions, it must mean that the court is ideologically in favor of those results- outcome-based jurisdiction. And that any claims to being neutral are self-serving lies. Whereas some schools of jurisprudence maintain that decisions _should_ be results-blind, and that any other interpretation would be the logical fallacy of [Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/89 "2022-06-29T01:12:14Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Good thing the SCOTUS hasn’t done that, then. The case of the praying coach on the football field goes in that direction. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/90 "2022-06-29T01:18:24Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Is Thomas really just in hate with liberal progressive values, and willing to back any rationale to strike them down? Or is it that as a jurist he truly believes that substantive due process as a doctrine is logically flawed, and would be okay with the cited decisions being restored under sounder constitutional foundations? He’s construing the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Didn’t someone once say somewhere that that shall not be done? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/91 "2022-06-29T01:29:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > He’s construing the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, to deny or disparage others retained by the people. > > Didn’t someone once say somewhere that that shall not be done? The problem of course is that if a right isn’t enumerated, how do you claim that a law is violating it? Much as it pains the would-be libertarian in me, I think that the ninth and tenth amendments only make logical sense as counters to Federal overreach, back when that was the primary purpose of the Bill Of Rights. And in this case the Federal government is letting go of a claimed authority, not asserting one. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/92 "2022-06-29T01:33:58Z")
Not really. The ruling again was in line with the actual Constitution: “Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression\>” It’s not some kind of religious wackiness, it’s what the Constitution says. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/93 "2022-06-29T01:35:46Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That wasn’t the ruling. They said abortion regulations were up to the People via the democratic process. As it should be. Nonsense. They’re conservatives. Conservatives don’t believe in the democratic process. Conservatives believe they should be running the country and everyone else should do what they’re told. The majority of the people wanted the Roe decision to stand. This was another example of conservatives ignoring what the democratic process said and rigging the system to get what they wanted. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/94 "2022-06-29T01:37:27Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Not really. The ruling again was in line with the actual Constitution: > > “Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance > from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression\>” > > It’s not some kind of religious wackiness, it’s what the Constitution says. I believe the dispute is over just how personal and individual an observance it really is when conducted by a school official with students in attendance. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/95 "2022-06-29T01:40:27Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > And in this case the Federal government is letting go of a claimed authority, not asserting one. The conservative majority on the Court took a right away from people and gave it back to the government to regulate. This was a huge defeat for libertarianism. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/96 "2022-06-29T01:40:50Z")
The Supreme Court doesn’t rule based on what the majority wants. That’s rather the point of that branch of government. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/97 "2022-06-29T01:43:18Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The Supreme Court doesn’t rule based on what the majority wants. That’s rather the point of that branch of government You’re the one who claimed this ruling was about democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/98 "2022-06-29T01:44:52Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > “Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance > from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression\>” When it was a personal religious observance, it wasn’t a problem. The problem started when the coach, as an agent of the government, started establishing religion. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/99 "2022-06-29T01:45:33Z")
Insofar as the People get to decide, not judges, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2022, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843/100 "2022-06-29T01:46:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The conservative majority on the Court took a right away from people and gave it back to the government to regulate. Back to the state governments. Nonetheless it was a reduction in Federal power, which was the technical point I was making vis a vis the 9th and 10th Amendments. > [@](#): > > This was a huge defeat for libertarianism. Without a doubt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-watch-and-see-a-lot-of-individual-rights-fall/966843.md?page=6)