Below is my column in the Hill on claims being made about the post-Roe world and the sweeping away of such rights as interracial marriage and the use of contraceptives. The “parade of horribles” seems to get longer by the day but it may actually be undermining the good-faith arguments made by pro-abortion advocates.
Here is the column:
The New Yorker magazine ran a cover in 1976 showing the view of the country from 9th Avenue. The map by Saul Steinberg showed civilization largely ending at the New Jersey border with a vast wasteland between New York and the Pacific Ocean.
It appears that, for some people, not much has changed with that view of America.
Recently the editors of the New York Times seriously warned that some states likely would outlaw interracial marriage if Roe v. Wade is overturned: “Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white people to marry. Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t.”
It is hard to imagine because it is utterly untrue. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization supports such a dire prediction. To the contrary, the draft expressly states that “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Indeed, such a motive might come as something of a surprise to Justice Clarence Thomas, given his own interracial marriage, or to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, given her own interracial family.
The purpose of the Times’ commentary seems to be to inflame rather than inform readers. And that is consistent with the position of politicians and pundits who raised alarms, even before the leak, over the need to reignite anger among voters to avoid a disaster in the midterm election. On MSNBC, for example, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with John Heilemann that Democrats must “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.”
The Times editorial is part of a “parade of horribles” that is becoming increasingly grotesque in its exaggerated claims. MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell and former Clinton Attorney General Eric Holder had a preposterous discussion of how if Roe goes down, Brown v. Board of Education could be next. MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” host Joy Reid falsely told her audience that the decision “could apply to almost anything” in not just prohibiting interracial marriage but overturning the Brown decision.
An apocalyptic post-Roe hellscape can be a motivating image, but only to the extent that it is credible. The problem is that the claims are detached from both legal and political realities. Consider three of these claims on interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage:
With polls showing that 94 percent of Americans support interracial marriage, the Times editors do not bother to name the states that are largely composed of the remaining 6 percent.
The claim is even less credible legally than it is politically. The leading case on interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia, was based on different constitutional grounds and would not be negated by this opinion. While the court did discuss the due process right to marriage, it was primarily handed down on equal protection grounds due to the inherent racial classification. Then-Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: “The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States … There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”
None of that, however, deters some pundits from keeping alive the fear that interracial marriages soon could be criminalized. As ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel declared, “They’ll come for same-sex marriage, they’ll come for interracial marriage, they’ll outlaw that peanut butter that comes with the jelly in the same jar.”
It might be a good comedic line — but this and similar claims make no constitutional sense. There is no reason to believe that interracial marriages would be banned in a post-Roe world.
The cries of alarm include other areas expressly addressed in the draft opinion as not impacted by its analysis. For example, many critics claim that contraception could soon be outlawed even though the court’s draft specifically dismisses such claims: “Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged.”
It is true that some activists have sought to outlaw IUDs and Plan B prescriptions as “abortion-inducing.” However, putting aside that the draft opinion expressly distinguishes the contraception cases, there is no basis for suggesting that the court would eradicate any semblance of personal privacy and intimacy protections under the Constitution. Such sweeping transformation of the private lives of Americans would involve curtailing a host of other rights, including equal protection. Moreover, there would be considerable practical barriers to such bans in preventing interstate availability of contraceptives.
The polling on this issue is even more lopsided. While the public remains supportive of limits on abortion, some 83 percent support to the availability of contraceptives. Only 6 percent favor making contraception illegal.
In 2015, the court voted 5-4 to strike down bans on same-sex marriage. The court’s specific foundation for this right has continued to be mired in controversy. Even some of us who had long supported same-sex marriage raised concerns at the time over the reliance of Justice Anthony Kennedy in his decision on a “right to dignity.”
Once again, however, the court in this draft opinion distinguishes abortion from other areas as involving claims of an “unborn human life.” Nothing in this opinion endorses a ban on same-sex unions.
However, even before this draft opinion was leaked, there were calls for a better-articulated foundation than the one laid out in Obergefell v. Hodges. As with interracial marriage, many of us have argued for an equal-protection foundation for the right.
Putting this aside, the politics on this issue has changed dramatically in the last decade. Polls show that 70 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage.
Roe is not the basis for all of these rights, and its basis has long been debated. Nevertheless, columnist Maureen Dowd has declared that the “antediluvian draft opinion is the Puritans’ greatest victory since they expelled Roger Williams from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.”
Such claims, however, ignore that the basis for the original decision was questioned even by liberals. Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote that “one of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” At least some of the court’s justices clearly hold many of the same doubts over the basis for Roe in the Constitution.
There is ample cause for pro-abortion advocates to organize over the loss of Roe. However, those claims are only undermined by a parade of horribles that leaves both the case law and credibility behind.
A cynic might wonder if Democratic leaders in Congress truly want to preserve the status quo of Roe. After all, their recent proposed codification of Roe went beyond the draft decision, which the leadership knew would lose critical votes in the Senate — but which may provide what they hope will be a powerful rallying cry for the midterm elections.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
143 thoughts on “The Post-Roe World: A Reality Check on the Implications of the Leaked Supreme Court Opinion”
Its main purpose is to provide a comprehensive and objective presentation of other people’s perspectives or to account for an occurrence or scenario. Of course, if you have the time, you may write these kind of college essays yourself. However, if you need to submit the essay quickly, you can get professional assistance.
Can’t someone be pro choice and agree with Alito’s draft opinion?
Yes. The idea that the Supreme Court should be deciding the most hot-button policy issues, not Congress, is due for a reboot. I know, it will be tough to break the 50 year habit of evasion of responsibility over on the Hill. But, this case is a good place to start.
Though the draft refers to “legislators” as the ones to be doing the policy-making, the question lingers: Who will better be able to lay to rest long-term the legal status of abortion: the 50 states or Congress?
If we consider the hardened positions of the 10% fringes on both extremes, no legislation will be possible that satisfies those factions.
Let’s consider what Congress could do with the 60-vote filibuster intact. If a national policy were to pass and be signed, at least it would be uniform throughout the nation. You wouldn’t have the “gaming” of conflicting state laws (medical vacationing, mail-order pills).
On the more reckless end of the spectrum, if the filibuster were repealed, we could have “see-saw” policy that wildly gyrates back and forth every time one party gains both houses of Congress and the WH.
If Roe is reversed without giving Congress a grace period (by end-of-2024) to attempt a bipartisan solution, then we’ll have a seething battle between the states. Can a state restrict or outlaw travel between the states? Can a state regulate the US Postal Service?
Can a private party in State A where abortion is illegal sue a private party in State B where it is legal for providing services?
State vs. state conflicts will end up in Federal Court, and the Dobbs Draft unfortunately not only fails to anticipate these showdowns, but gives no guidance to the lower courts on how best to handle the coming onslaught. This is irresponsible action on SCOTUS part.
SCOTUS exists to keep order within the jurisprudence of the lower courts. Handing abortion policy to the states knowing the types of irreconcilable conflicts that are already emerging is throwing gasoline on a fire. SCOTUS will never extricate themselves under that scenario. Only if Congress passes a national law can SCOTUS back away as the policymakers.
So, yes, elected representatives are the ones who should craft abortion policy, not SCOTUS. But, then, does SCOTUS want to hand back responsibility for policy with a decent roadmap for legislative success?….or pretend to be washing their hands of the whole mess, but only until the first “proxy” case bubbles up from state litigants lower courts? How this is answered in Dobbs will bear on the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution for quite some time.
Jonathan; Alito may be an authority on 17th century English jurisprudence but he knows next to nothing about the “law of unintended consequences.” This law is playing out in Oklahoma of all places. If Alito’s draft opinion becomes final Oklahoma is poised to outlaw almost all abortions–thanks to the white GOP dominated state legislature and Gov. Kevin Stitt. Now you would think Stitt and his GOP colleagues would be elated. You would be wrong. Gov. Stitt was just on Fox complaining that Native American tribes in OK are preparing to set up abortion clinics on tribal lands. This is because one-half of OK is within tribal lands–including Tulsa with a population of 1 million. Stitt is outraged. He told Fox: “We think there is a possibility that some tribes may try to set up abortion on demand . They think you can be one-one thousandth tribal member and not have to follow the law”. Stitt ranted on: “The tribes in Oklahoma are super liberal. They go to Washington, D.C.. They talk to President Biden at the White House. They adopt these strategies.”
You have to give it to Native Americans . They will find a work-around for the white man’s laws. Which reminds me that I once lived in LA. One of my neighbors and friends was Floyd “Red Crow” Westerman who starred in Kevin Costner’s “Dancing with Wolves”. You could never miss Floyd’s house. It had a big tee-pee in the front yard with the words “Fight for native rights!” written across the front. Floyd has sadly passed. But just before his death he told me that in his tribe women play a vital role in making community decisions. Alito may want to turn back the clock to the 17th century when it comes to women’s rights but Native American women in 2022 will also have something to say about white man rule in the “Post- Roe World”. Gives a whole new meaning to the law of unintended consequences.
Native American women in 2022 will also have something to say about white man rule in the “Post- Roe World
Do you mean the people closest to the situation will set the rules they live under? Not some Man 1000 miles away that can’t be held to account for his rulings?
Professor Turley Writes:
“The “parade of horribles” seems to get longer by the day but it may actually be undermining the good-faith arguments made by pro-abortion advocates.”
You would think a memo went out to every Republican telling them to belittle any fears Democrats might have regarding the court’s scheme to revoke reproductive rights. These are all the same Republicans who belittled the ‘notion’ that Vladimir Putin was preparing to invade Ukraine.
One need only look at the court’s decision with regards to Shelby County v. Holder to see what happens when the court claws back policies that ensured constitutional rights.
Below are the first 3 paragraphs from Wikipedia’s article:
Shelby County v. Holder,(2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.
On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that Section 4(b) was unconstitutional because the coverage formula was based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula. Some allege the ruling has made it easier for state officials to make it harder for ethnic minority voters to vote.
Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and minority turnout. Five years after the ruling, nearly 1,000 U.S. polling places had closed, many of them in predominantly African-American counties. Research shows that changing and reducing voting locations can reduce voter turnout. There were also cuts to early voting, purges of voter rolls and imposition of strict voter ID laws. A 2020 study found that jurisdictions that had previously been covered by preclearance substantially increased their voter registration purges after the Shelby decision. Virtually all restrictions on voting subsequent to the ruling were enacted by Republicans.
Since Shelby v. Holder we have seen an endless wave of restrictions by Republican-dominated legislatures calculated to make voting more difficult. And so many of the state imposing these restrictions just happen to be in the old south. What a coincidence! These are the very same states most likely to criminalize abortion. Yet Johnathan Turley assures us that all these scare stories in mainstream media can’t be taken seriously. ..Who’s kidding who..??
Since Shelby v. Holder we have seen an endless wave of restrictions by Republican-dominated legislatures calculated to make voting more difficult
To coincide with increased participation of minorities.
Sure, Iowan. Now we can look forward to ‘more’ reproductive choices. ..Not..!
Just and example of the left claiming things will happen, and the exact opposite is the result.
Your fear mongering is not fact. Just a way to argue when the facts don’t support your desires.
In a live ultrasound image, a fetus moves away from the abortionist’s instruments.
The actions to avoid the intruding instruments constitute a statement by the fetus that it does not want to be aborted and that it does want to live.
Simply continuing to develop constitutes a statement by the fetus that it does not want to be aborted and that it does want to live.
“My body, my choice,” states the fetus.
Our host put up a post about how the left an
d the media, (reduntant?) has presented a parade of horribles since the illicit leak of a SCOTUS draft opinion.
Promptly followed by the trolls, following their marching orders, adding, amplifying, enumerating, more horribles, or turning loose an assault of ad hominem attacks.
Nothing if not predictable.
Perhaps JT was not was not thorough or persuasive enough in his arguments in the 3,areas, especially his discussion of polls. I thought the commenters made good points and as I result I “liked” several of them.
For a very short time I sold very expensive home security systems. It took me two sales calls with a trainer to realize it was just a scam. When a sales presentation wasn’t going well the fall back approach was to throw blood on the walls by telling an antidote about a home break in that resulted in an horrific murder. When all else fails the Democrats have no problem with the blood on the walls tactic. This is like watching an old time melodrama where the beautiful young heroine cries with the back of her hand to her forehead “Oh the horror if it all”. Then she almost faints with an onset of the vapors.
Jonathan: It was almost predictable you would write this post. You say it is “utterly untrue” that Alito’s draft opinion could be used to overturn other rights, e.g., interracial marriage, same sex marriage and the right to contraception. You say this “parade of horribles” is exaggerated because Alito makes clear his opinion only applies to abortion. Besides, you say, polls show overwhelming support for these other rights.
In his opinion Alito cites no less than a dozen times the 17th century English jurist Matthew Hale, who opposed abortion, for the proposition that “the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions…”. Not true. Up until the Civil War abortion was legal before the onset of “quickening”. Alito misstates the law to frame his argument. Despite his denials, probably designed to assuage public outrage over his decision, Alito’s language could be used to overturn other contemporary rights that are “not deeply rooted” in the nation’s history, e.g., the right to contraception, gay marriage, etc. For example, In 2018 the SC ruled a Colorado baker could refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on religious “freedom”. What is to prevent a priest, rabbi or minister from refusing to marry a gay couple based on religious “freedom” and then asking the conservative majority to rule gay marriage is “not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions”? Alito’s flawed rationale on abortion could be applied to other rights. If Alito’s draft becomes final Missouri and other GOP controlled states are poised to not only ban all abortions but to make it illegal to travel across state lines to obtain an abortion. That would be a violation of the commerce clause. The Court has long upheld the right of citizens to freely travel between states. If a woman were prosecuted in Missouri for going to neighboring Illinois to obtain an abortion how would Alito rule? Would he vote to overturn the commerce clause because he strongly opposes abortion? A Hobson’s choice if there ever was one.
Citing polls doesn’t add to your argument. The Court has never relied on polls for its decisions. Certainly not the current conservative majority that wants to allow states to ban abortion despite polls that show overwhelming support for Roe around the country. It is even more bizarre for you to claim the Dems actually would like to see Roe overturned as a “powerful rallying cry for the midterms. There are plenty of issues to worry about for the Dems without having to defend Roe. You simply can’t make that assertion with a straight face.
I prefer Margaret Atwood’s take on Alito’s draft opinion. The author of the dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale” originally thought the novel was “too far-fetched”. She now has second thoughts: “Silly me. Theocratic dictatorships do not lie only in the distant past. There are a number of them on the planet today. What is to prevent the United States from becoming one of them?” For those not familiar with Atwood’s novel it is based on 17th century New England religious rules and jurisprudence imported from England. Yes, the writings of English jurist Hale that Alito relies upon to justify overturning Roe. Atwood points out: “if Justice Alito wants you to be governed by the laws of the 17th century, you should take a close look at that century, Is that when you want to live?”
“The Post-Roe World: A Reality Check on the Implications of the Leaked Supreme Court Opinion”
– Professor Turley
The Supreme Court is essential and critical to American self-governance. The American Founders anticipated the “overreach” of the assertive Executive and Legislative branches; the Judicial Branch was designed to redirect the nation back into the dominion of the U.S. Constitution. American freedom lasted for 71 years. Since 1860, the Supreme Court has failed to do its duty to support the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, per the oath it swore, Chief Justice Taney’s lackluster and perfunctory stab at correction notwithstanding. The “Leak” will do little to change the Supreme Court’s true destiny: It’s support for, alliance with and subjugation by the Globalist Deep Deep State.
The driving issue today, however, is John Durham’s concluding act of acquiescence and supplication to that very same Globalist Deep Deep State. John “Earl Warren” Durham will prosecute merely one of hundreds of co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America this week. Special Counsel Durham’s action will occur in the heart of the Globalist Deep Deep State, Washington D.C. He will lose, close his briefcase and ride off into the sunset, “…a man of wealth and taste…having stole many a man’s soul and faith….”
John “Earl Warren” Durham will prove the JFK “single-bullet theory” by omission and lose the case, ending the prosecution of the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.
On such a sad day for America – the funeral for America – how might one find even a scintilla of material concern for any “Leak”?
The standard Turley defense to any criticism is that he once said the opposite. Truthfully, Turley has taken both sides on almost every issue but he certainly leans well to the right and defends the worst behavior of Republicans. He simultaneously lumps all Democrats together based on the comments of one or two.
Additionally, there is the Turley that smiles and is oh so reasonable when giving testimony and speaking on television. Compare that with the Turley that condemns all Democrats for attacks on free speech while condemning the free speech of Democrats who protest Supreme Court Justices.
Turley is an excellent lawyer and is well versed on the issues. Unfortunately he uses his knowledge to support his bias, while occasionally saying something said by someone he supports was “poorly worded” or “I wouldn’t have done it that way.” Turley makes it possible for many of you to believe your thoughts are well-founded, none of them are racist, and are just as the Founders intended, even if they never said so.
There is nothing more annoying than these “+100” posts. Well, maybe leaf blowers.
The area of misperception, destitution and conflict:
The egregious violation of law, fundamental law and Acts by Abraham Lincoln, 1863.
Laws and Acts
When a bill is passed in identical form by both the Senate and the House, it is sent to the president for his signature. If the president signs the bill, it becomes a law. Laws are also known as Acts of Congress. Statute is another word that is used interchangeably with law.
When the president signs a law, the law receives a number in the order in which it is signed. A citation to a public law looks like this: P.L.107-101, where 107 indicates this law was passed during the 107th Congress, and 101 is the numerical designation it received. A private law is designated similarly, but uses the term private law instead of public law.
Public and private laws are printed as slip laws–which are single sheets or pamphlets containing the text of the law. At the end of each session of Congress, slip laws are compiled into a single volume called U.S. Statutes at Large.
Most laws are eventually incorporated into the U.S. Code.
– United States Senate
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
George, you really have to get some new material. In front of any other audience you’d be booed off the stage.
“AN EARNEST OF THE EPOCH TO COME”
Was that an incontrovertible legal argument?
Is it your emprise that 1860/1863 was not the illicit inflection point away from the Constitution and Bill of Rights, following Karl Marx toward “…the reconstruction of a social world”?
“They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1864, Letter of Congratulation and Commendation
Given that the Supreme Court soon will have taken the equivalent of 50 years worth of “corrective action,” an amount the size of the entire nation would seem to be in order now.
Wasn’t America designed and engineered to strictly adhere to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, oh, and the laws, statutes, codes and Acts?
Perhaps we should query the designers, the engineers and the Framers – the American Founders.
Hmmm, couldn’t one say the same about you?
Unlike George, I have a wealth of material covering centuries. George has the same few things, if you gave the slightest effort you could repeat them.
You are as repetitive as George, but much of what George provides (certainly not all) are important tidbits of American history frequently by way of quotes from famous Americans.
Why am I not surprised at your stance?
I know the above trio are nothing but trolls. but anyway, here goes.
Truthfully, Turley has taken both sides on almost every issue but he certainly leans well to the right and defends the worst behavior of Republicans. He simultaneously lumps all Democrats together based on the comments of one or two.
What the trolls are doing is judging Turley not by his positions, but by wether they agree with his stance.
Turley studiously adheres to the law and constitution. That seemingly might appear to be a contradiction to a political position.
The protestors in front of justices homes is a good example. Turley cited the federal law defining protests in the street in front of federal judges homes violates the law.Then the good Prof said he would not prosecuted the protestors. A contradiction? No. just laying out both sides of the discussion.
In the future, attack the legal frame work, not the conclusion. Not the person.
Ad hominems are huge flags you have nothing of substance to support your position.
Most trolls are imbued with the inability to recognize that they themselves are a troll. Turley has multiple positions on everything. It’s impossible to agree with him without disagreeing as well.
People sated with generational welfare and affirmative action gain such confidence, from that which is provided through the generous application of Other People’s Money (OPM), that they are reluctant, if not downright embarrassed, to acknowledge that, in the genuine absence of capacity and acumen for the achievement of self-advancement and self-sustenance, they have been sated with generational welfare and affirmative action.
The countenance, however, is a dead giveaway.
You are SO intellectually dishonest Turley that I don’t understand how any university could allow you to teach. I literally laughed out loud when you tried to defend Alito. He put in the Dobbs opinion that nothing in Dobbs could be construed to take away other rights that rely on the same Constitutional principles. YES IT WOULD, and he knows it. If it didn’t affect these other rights, there would be no need to try to defend reversing Roe.
Turley speaks of “legal and political realities” that he claims would prevent states from banning contraception, interracial marriage and marriage equality, because, according to Turley, a majority of Americans support these freedoms. Turley ignores the fact that the majority also supports Roe, especially abortion in the first trimester. Turley repeats Alito’s little word games, when he attempts to distinguish a woman’s right to choose from these other rights involving “personal privacy and intimacy (contraception) by claiming that abortion involves “unborn human life”. NO, it doesn’t, Turley. Abortion involves an undeveloped primitive being that is not capable of life.
States previously banned interracial marriage, contraception, marriage equality and certain sex acts between consenting adults, and they could do it again, now that the SCOTUS has ruled that such individual rights to privacy and intimacy aren’t protected by the Constitution. And, as usual, Turley tries to get in some digs at Democrats, spoon fed to him from Fox.
I am woman, hear me roar – so long as I retain generational welfare and affirmative action.
Don’t leave home without it!
Justice Thomas to the media:
“I will absolutely leave the Court when I do my job as poorly as you do yours.”
These are the same justices who would not even say if Brown was correctly decided. Of course they are going after other rights. Of course they will uphold contraceptive bans. Republicans did not put partisans on the court for and get everything out of them.
Good news, Svelaz / Sammy / Seth / Nail Salon Diva,
Kids will not subject you to malicious misgendering if you attend public schools in Fairfax, Virginia.
Fairfax Public Schools consider rule suspending students for ‘malicious misgendering’
“Using slurs based upon the actual or perceived gender identity” is forbidden under the rules of the document, “which includes, but is not limited to, malicious deadnaming or malicious misgendering.”
You’re a homophobe.
Takes one to know one beaaaattccchhh
It doesn’t “beaaaattccchhh.”
Please cite the Constitution and Bill of Rights wherein the right to and freedom of “phobe” is denied and precluded.
Please cite the Constitution and Bill of Rights wherein Congress is provided any power to dictate a mandate to “phile.”
You deliberately misread, misunderstand and misrepresent.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights most certainly provide the right and freedom to accept or reject, to like or dislike, to love or despise any activity, any behavior, anything and everything.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not establish or promote tyranny, oppression, dictatorship or despotism.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not deny rights to the majority to provide different and superior rights to any minority.
You are antithetical, anti-constitutional, anti-American, a liar, a fraud, a traitor and a direct and mortal enemy of America and actual Americans.
Really need a mute button like Volokh has.
How’s that investigation into the leaker going, Justice Roberts? Any progress?
Comments are closed.