Allow myself to quote myself from a post I wrote nearly two years ago on the day RBG died because I could foresee then as crystal as a clear blue sky exactly what her death meant: “People have no f***ing clue — no idea, no comprehension, as usual — just how catastrophic [RBG’s death] is for America! Roe v. Wade? Gone! Obamacare? Gone! Corporations are people? Hell, yes! And get ready for them to be able to vote, too! Gun control? Never! You get an AR-15! And you get an AR-15. And you get an AR-15! Marriage equality? Gone! Climate change issues? What climate change? Corporation versus individual? The corporation always wins. All those other unenumerated constitutional rights? All those other rights only inferred by the Constitution which a liberal Court found? Gone! Gone! Gone! … A conservative Court will enshrine the First Amendment as reasoning for open season on discrimination of every kind, especially against the LGBTQ community. I cannot repeat the disaster this will be for America for the next thirty years! Mark my words, morons! People have been asleep at the wheel [emphasis in original].” What I’ve been warning about for all this time is coming to pass, beginning with Roe. Marriage equality is just a matter of time. That Constitutional right is a dead man walking. It would seem that people have finally awoken to reality, all too late, though.
But don’t take my word for it. Justice Thomas said the quiet part out loud in his concurrence opinion, “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[.]’… 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.” Commentators have rightly focused on Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, but be very clear that Thomas wants to go after every freedom emanating from the Fourteenth Amendment. Things you haven’t even thought of yet are on the chopping block. According to Thomas, there are many freedom “errors” to fix. So get ready, f***tards.
Moreover, do not rely on the majority’s opinion that proclaims, “And 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. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” And they reiterate, “Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. … But we have stated unequivocally that ‘[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.’… We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed ‘potential life.’” Oh, my! They sound very reassuring. In fact, a bit too reassuring. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The “potential life” as a difference as an argument is a fallacy. They think they can carve out this one exception for dismantling unenumerated rights because it deals with potential life. That’s like being partially pregnant. Either they acknowledge there is no such thing as unenumerated rights in the Consitution, which they used to justify overturning Roe, or there are unenumerated rights. It can’t be both, and that’s the type of legal reasoning in future challenges that will make their way to SCOTUS, which they’ll use to scuttle gay marriage.
Finally, make no mistake that the majority of justices are liars, except Thomas. He actually said what the rest are thinking and believe. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all lied about Roe during their confirmation hearings, claiming that Roe and Casey were “settled law” and that they were “precedent on precedent.” All lies! They lied then, and they lied in the Dobbs opinion. So, what makes you think Obergefell is any different? That precedent is only seven years old and has not been tested. So, there is nothing “settled” about it. And let’s remind ourselves of the justices sitting on the Court now who voted against marriage equality in Obergefell. Hmmm. Roberts, Alito, Thomas. A third in the bag plus the three liars! The supermajority of uber-conservative justices will strike down gay marriage the first chance they get. Mark my words, f***tards! I was right two years ago, and I’m right now! Welcome to stupid America, where every day is a return to the past, and people love it! Most just won’t admit it.