Avatar feed
Responses: 3
1SG Signal Support Systems Specialist
1
1
0
Hold the people who vote "Nay" politically accountable.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SrA John Monette
0
0
0
Nadler should have said "as this Court WILL take aim at other fundamental rights..." Thomas already stated that.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
Patricia Overmeyer
>1 y
SrA John Monette: Except he conspicuously left out the Loving case, which was decided on the same fundamental privacy rights that allowed doctors to discuss sexual health with their patients, allowed contraceptives, abortion, same-sex marriage, private family matters (i.e. having your grandchildren live with you, having a right to determine how to raise your child, etc.), the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the right to determine to end life saving medical treatment. There are even more rights I could name, but this USSC only wants to go after "certain" privacy rights which they deem should not be held. It will be interesting to see them twist the logic pretzel for those other privacy rights when they come up before the court.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SrA John Monette
SrA John Monette
>1 y
Patricia Overmeyer - Of course he left out Loving. Because that would make his marriage invalid and illegal. This just goes to show how the right is becoming more and more fascist. They want to dictate everything we do. If they were to overturn Loving, they would probably make it so that everyone who was married after a certain date, probably the day after clarence and his wife got married, was null and void, if not downright illegal.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Charlie Brown
0
0
0
We'll have to see how this goes...
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close