Boofer boy cites landmark gay rights cases in argument about abortion restrictions

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to suggest earlier this week that landmark LGBTQ cases could support overturning federal abortion rights.

The Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments Wednesday concerning a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

A majority of the court’s conservative justices appeared prepared to uphold the law and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision holding that women have a constitutional right to have an abortion before fetal viability, usually around 24 weeks.

The crux of Wednesday’s oral arguments centered around whether the justices should preserve or walk back on precedent, a court decision that is considered authority for subsequent cases involving similar or identical circumstances. The court’s liberal justices warned that reversing a decades-old ruling would politicize the country’s highest court.

However, citing two landmark gay rights cases — Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity in 2003, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which resulted in the legalization of same-sex marriage across the United States in 2015 — Kavanaugh suggested that overruling the court’s previous opinions was standard procedure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-cites-landmark-gay-rights-162938336.html

[Walleye]

1. So typical of right wing tactics. These decisions that were overturned to expand rights

I’ve never heard of a decision being over turn to restrict rights

[moondust]

2. "overruling" previous opinions

to expand the rights of Americans is NOT the same as "overruling" previous opinions to take rights away from Americans.

[femmedem]

4. I agree with you 100%, but the right's argument will be

that overturning Roe would expand the rights of the unborn. It all boils down to a fundamental disagreement about whether fetuses are human and have human rights, or whether they are part of a woman's body over which she has control.

I'm completely pro-choice, but it is hard to sway someone who believes that fetuses are human beings who deserve human rights.

Edited to add: but this certainly contradicts his testimony that he gave under oath during his confirmation hearing.

[moondust]

7. Surely that has been discussed

at length before, during, and since the 1973 ruling. Would that not constitute an issue that had to be "settled" before the ruling?

[femmedem]

8. Good point.

I assume so.

So that would be where Kavanaugh lied under oath about settled precedent. Yet if he believes that fetuses are full humans, then he would still think of this as expanding rights, consistent with overturning decisions that kept schools segregated or denied rights to the LGBTQ community.

Or maybe he is that misogynistic, regardless of what he believes about fetuses. So he is either a liar, a misogynist, or both.

[pecosbob]

3. Spewing Sophistry and Shite simultaneously

[dchill]

5. Just calling balls and strikes.

That's all I'm doing!

[Meadowoak]

6. Kavenaugh has the mind of a. 8 yr. Old, just like all right wingers.

[Mad_Machine76]

9. Trying a little "divide and conquer" here?

Pitting supporters of abortion rights against supporters of LGBTQ rights?