Alito and Thomas's chilling statement

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Lost amid all the attention on America's first superspreader, Alito and Thomas just made a statement that they think the ruling on Same Sex marriage should be re-examined by the SCOTUS. Obviously they are no fans of judicial precedent and are frothing at the bit to destroy them some more lives with the upcoming 6-3 Conservative majority.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, argued in a Monday statement that the landmark 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide was improperly decided and suggested the court should "fix" the decision.

The statement, written by Thomas and joined by Alito, was attached to a decision from the top court allowing a lower court's ruling against Kim Davis to stand. Davis was a county clerk in Kentucky who infamously refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of her religious objections. Although Thomas and Alito joined the majority in rejecting Davis' case, they argued that it raised important questions about Obergefell v. Hodges—which legalized same-sex marriage across the country.

"It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law," Thomas wrote. "But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch."

https://www.newsweek.com/conservati...-should-fix-its-ruling-that-legalized-1536454

So any Log Cabin Republicans left out there will have to decide which is more important to them: not having to pay taxes or keeping their marriages.

Note I am guessing this statement is a blatantly political attempt to try and motivate and flagging evangelicals. The general thought is that same-sex marriage is a done deal and they have to deal with it, it gives evangelicals something else to drool over besides overturning Roe v Wade.
 
Last edited:

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
9,615
Reaction score
1,852
Location
East Coast
I'm not quite sure how to process this news. Anymore, it's like that. Having to read and reread several times before my brain can allow the information into my consciousness in any meaningful way.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,616
Reaction score
7,293
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Note I am guessing this statement is a blatantly political attempt to try and motivate and flagging evangelicals. The general thought is that same-sex marriage is a done deal and they have to deal with it, it gives evangelicals something else to drool over besides overturning Roe v Wade.

I agree. I'm not as connected to evangelicals as I used to be, but they seem to have given up the public fight on same-sex marriage, but less so on transgender rights. They pull the "laws of God versus laws of man" argument: just because the state recognizes it doesn't mean they have to do it or allow in their church. They've accepted that separation of church and state. Abortion is a whole 'nother ballgame they will never concede any ground on at all.

But regarding the OP: Yikes, nevertheless.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
What do they have planned next? Cancelling women's right to vote? Taking back the Emancipation Proclamation?
Cancelling the 14th Amendment?
If this is for the Evangelicals, every other minority group should be voting against anyone who supports this.
It's ridiculous - a small pack of judicial zealots can't change things just to suit themselves. They must be soo happy RBG is dead. Note that they waited 'til she was dead before they brought it up.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
How dare the court interfere with certain selected Christian moral values. Said Christians are allowed to step on anyone else's rights but not the other way around. I wonder how Thomas views inter-ethnic marriages? I doubt he would see the hypocrisy if it hit him on the head.

Welcome to the Republic of Gilead.

The two of them, Alito and Thomas, are chomping at the bit:

The Federalist: How Strong Women Like Amy Coney Barrett Submit To Their Husbands With Joy
Leftists are attacking Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett for having a view of marriage entirely in keeping with a proper reading of scripture.

I couldn't quote anymore without gagging.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
How dare the court interfere with certain selected Christian moral values. Said Christians are allowed to step on anyone else's rights but not the other way around. I wonder how Thomas views inter-ethnic marriages? I doubt he would see the hypocrisy if it hit him on the head.

He's an odd one. His journey to a very conservative style of Black nationalism and opposition to affirmative action is an interesting one.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
From the link:
... the only hope for black people lies within themselves, not as individuals but as a separate community with separate institutions, apart from white people.
Segregation?

Thomas is one of those I got mine, you should be able to do the same.


On the political side, he and his wife are extreme Libertarians so I'm not surprised he has rationalized why blacks don't need even a little help up. From the article it looks like so much of his ingrained beliefs stem from his personal experience meaning he has no clue or patience for people whose life experiences differed from his.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
From the link:Segregation?

Thomas is one of those I got mine, you should be able to do the same.


On the political side, he and his wife are extreme Libertarians so I'm not surprised he has rationalized why blacks don't need even a little help up. From the article it looks like so much of his ingrained beliefs stem from his personal experience meaning he has no clue or patience for people whose life experiences differed from his.

And that pretty much sums up the attitude of most of the libertarians and more traditional Conservatives I know too
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Speaking of the dastardly duo:

NPR: Supreme Court Refuses To Block Lower Court Order On Abortion Pills

The issue was allowing women to obtain abortion pills by mail because of the COVID pandemic. Other medications including opiates were excepted because of the pandemic. Normally you would have to pick up such a prescription in person. When exceptions were made for controlled substances, naturally someone tried to block the same for abortion pills.

The court's decision came Thursday night on a 6-to-2 vote that rejected an emergency appeal from the Trump administration.

The challenge to the FDA regulation was brought by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists after the the agency relaxed similar regulations for other drugs--including opioids--in order to limit patients' exposure to Covid-19 during the pandemic, but refused to relax the same rule for those with prescriptions for abortions with pills in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.

Federal Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland ruled in favor of ACOG, declaring that requiring such in-person pick-ups of pills during a pandemic posed "a substantial obstacle to women seeking an abortion." The Supreme Court has long ruled that such substantial obstacles unconstitutionally interfere with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

How Alito and Thomas see it boggles the mind:
The language of the one-paragraph order seemed to suggest that the court was simply unwilling to make any decision in an abortion case two weeks after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and just days before the U.S. Senate is scheduled to take up the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Ginsburg's replacement.

"It is a relief that for the next few weeks the Trump administration cannot force abortion patients to needlessly risk contracting a life-threatening disease as a condition of obtaining care," said Julia Kaye, lead counsel for ACOG in the case. But, she added, "When President Trump is trying to rush through a third Supreme Court justice with the express goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, the court's delayed ruling in this case gives little comfort that the right to abortion is secure."

Dissenting from Thursday night's decision were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Writing for the two, Alito said that "for all practical purposes there is little difference between what the court has done and an express denial" of the Trump administration's emergency motion to block the lower court order.

Alito went on to blast his colleagues for other actions it has taken during the pandemic in upholding bans on large church gatherings, decisions that he characterized as "unimaginable restraints" on the "free exercise of religion."

Because you know, banning the mailing of a prescription is the same as banning large church gatherings.
:Jaw:
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Speaking of the dastardly duo:

NPR: Supreme Court Refuses To Block Lower Court Order On Abortion Pills

The issue was allowing women to obtain abortion pills by mail because of the COVID pandemic. Other medications including opiates were excepted because of the pandemic. Normally you would have to pick up such a prescription in person. When exceptions were made for controlled substances, naturally someone tried to block the same for abortion pills.



How Alito and Thomas see it boggles the mind:


Because you know, banning the mailing of a prescription is the same as banning large church gatherings.
:Jaw:
Alito is clearly one of those religious individuals who sees "freedom of religion" as the right of people from the "dominant" religions in a society to enforce their religious norms on everyone else. It does indeed boggle the mind.

But one weakness of our system is the constitution says whatever the justices say it does. Normally, that's fine, because you have a mix of justices with different judicial philosophies and also, they aren't supposed to have a political agenda, per se, since they serve for life once appointed. But now we are coming off decades of hard-right ideology, where being conservative means you are a "true believer" in a very reactionary agenda. Once we have a very lopsided and reactionary court, this is a serious problem.

And re Alito's siding with the religious folks and invoking the covid shut downs, as if they were meant to be particularly insulting to religious people. The thing that has been driving me nuts about all the people who are claiming the Covid gathering restrictions are "shutting down their churches" is that they do no such thing. I know a number of people whose churches have gone to virtual services, and others that are meeting outdoors with masks and socially distanced. They are doing so gracefully and with understanding of the compromises needed in the current situation to keep their parishioners, and the co-workers and families of their parishioners, safe. They are not being stopped from worshiping, they are simply having to be a bit more creative and flexible about the way they go about it.

Just like everyone else has to be more creative and flexible right now.
 
Last edited:

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Virtual churches have been around for decades. They're on everyone's televisions in the form of informercials and more classic services.

Persecution is ingrained in the Christian religion: like the imaginary war on Christmas because people expected public offices/buildings to be religion neutral.
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
Why do some Evangelical right-wing churches seem so upset about this? Is their faith not strong enough?
The Jews, the Muslims, the Sikhs, at least, don't seem to have a problem with praying and reading their holy texts on their own. I confess I have no idea how the Hindus, Buddhists, etc are doing, but they don't seem to be complaining on social media.
The Pope closed large religious events in Rome.
Heck, the Jehovah's Witnesses gave up their street-corners and door-knocking without whining about it, and that's their whole 'thing'.

Everyone else can worship their deities in private, but not these 'Christians'?
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Virtual churches have been around for decades. They're on everyone's televisions in the form of informercials and more classic services.

Persecution is ingrained in the Christian religion: like the imaginary war on Christmas because people expected public offices/buildings to be religion neutral.

Christianity has been the unofficial official religion of the public sector, and it got even more support in that respect during the 50s, because it set us apart from those "godless" commies. When I was a teen, I was horrified to discover there was an invocation before our graduation. It was supposed to be interfaith and nondenominational (if such a thing can truly exist), but the pastor leading it made several references to "our heavenly father and his son." Pretty sure this didn't speak to Jewish students, let alone any Buddhists, Hindus or pagans. Certainly left those of us who aren't theists at all cold. My dad explained (over my sputtering outrage) that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion, and life isn't fair etc. But it was still maddening, being as it was the middle of the Reagan years, when he'd been swept into office with a "mandate" from a group calling themselves the "moral majority," which opposed everything that allowed women (not to mention other groups) to be full participants in society.

In any case, nothing equals the rage of a group that has gotten a free ride all along and has lost some of the privilege they took as a given (or even had some of that privilege questioned or challenged without actually losing it). Especially when the largest single group within US Christianity (evangelical protestants) believe they are the only "true" religion and everyone else is going to hell (even other Christians who don't interpret scriptures the way they do). Many of them seem to believe their religious freedom lies in force converting everyone else and in treating certain groups they consider "sinful" like shit. For reasons that defy logic, they think Trump is their anointed one.

On a different note, Orthodox Jews in New York are also protesting restrictions on religious gatherings, and they lack the same leg to stand on as the evangelicals do. No Constitutional right is absolute or without exception (or we'd be able to shout fire in theaters and perform human sacrifice), and there is ample precedent for temporarily restricting some freedoms in the name of public safety. Pretty sure Churches aren't supposed to be having their services during evacuations for Hurricanes or fires either.

The problem with this plague is that people aren't prepared to assess ongoing crises where the day to day risk is slight for many people but the long-term risk is high (if you practice poor social distancing over time, you will likely catch it sooner or later), but there is no immediate consequence for dangerous behavior, as there would be with a fire.

However, to have their own legs to stand on, the state and local governments must be entirely consistent in how they apply these restrictions. It is hypocritical to open restaurants to indoor, mask-free dining 6' apart (ignoring aerosols) while telling small groups of masked religious people they can't also meet indoors if they stay six feet apart. And if we are going to allow outdoor protests, we should allow outdoor worship too, as long as masks are worn and other precautions are taken.

And FFS, we need strong contact tracing so we know which activities are spreading the virus and we can fine tune our rules to keep people safe while allowing activities that aren't spreading the virus.
 
Last edited:

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
I don't believe there were denial of religious groups meeting outside, masked with social distancing.

They (meaning a specific group of Christians) wanted to meet indoors with no restrictions.

I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
If you let these guys hold services in parks, etc., even if you mark the spots for them, provide hand-sanitizer and hose off the seats for them, they won't be happy.
It's either not what they're used to, might rain, or people are looking at them funny.
They will still want to be packed into their churches, breathing each other's air.
 

CWatts

down the rabbit hole of research...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
1,755
Reaction score
1,232
Location
Virginia, USA
If you let these guys hold services in parks, etc., even if you mark the spots for them, provide hand-sanitizer and hose off the seats for them, they won't be happy.
It's either not what they're used to, might rain, or people are looking at them funny.
They will still want to be packed into their churches, breathing each other's air.

Until it kills them:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52157824

https://martinsvillebulletin.com/ne...cle_0ce2e65d-9ae3-5c8d-b7fc-ac239c130afb.html

This one was a few miles from me at a Black evangelical church:
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-virginia-pastor-gerald-glenn-community-2020-7
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
It's occurred to me that the leadership of some churches might not like virtual services, or even socially distanced outdoor services, because packed indoor worship venues might be better for encouraging people to put a goodly amount of money in the collection plate. I'm not a churchgoer, but the few times I've gone to services with friends or relatives, I do feel that pressure (at least with the types of churches that engage in giving and programs I think are beneficial) to put money in when everyone else is. But if folks are online, or more spread out, there's more anonymity about one's donation habits.

My mother in law (a member of one of those rebellious reconciling Methodist denominations) says her church has been doing online since the early days of the pandemic, and donations are fine. But it might depend on the demographics of parishioners. Her church is in a college town and frequented by well-educated, fairly liberal families who likely have high speed internet and can work from home. Not all professions (or income brackets) have been equally affected by the pandemic shutdowns.