I’m ashamed to admit that I still have a little optimism here. The question is, will liberals continue to sublimate their rage into meaningless acts that make them feel better, or will they exercise actual power, by voting Democrats into office on local, state, and national levels, and by demanding that the desecration of the Supreme Court that took place during the Trump years (and the last of Obama’s) be corrected immediately, by changing the size of the court or enacting term limits or both?Īnd in the meantime, will liberals donate enough money to pro-abortion organizations so that every woman who wants one can travel to a state where her rights are still respected? Will moderate white women-looking at you, Susan Collins-finally realize that a party that sells out to Christian theocrats is not looking out for their best interests? It’s why liberals think that occupying a public square is a “victory,” even if it accomplishes nothing. That’s why liberals reduce their “carbon footprints,” even though that concept is a neo-liberal scam, invented by British Petroleum to dodge collective responsibility for climate change and place it on individuals instead. We like to do things that give ourselves the illusion of power. Of course, I’m sure liberals will hold marches, because that’s what we like to do. And that those very rights were at stake in 2016, and again in the Senate elections of 2018, and again in 2020, and again in the Senate elections this year. They should have arm-twisted their Jill Stein friends, and let their Republican relatives know that, hey, women are people and shouldn’t be forced by the government to carry a fetus (or a blastocyst, or an embryo) inside of their womb.
![furry gay sex police furry gay sex police](http://th6.dirtypornvids.com/th/IwD/97950085.jpg)
What liberals should have done in 2016 was ensure that a Democrat won the oval office. I’m not sure where that leaves my custody of my child, but I can tell you that I am certain that my family will not be protected by the Constitution two years from now.
![furry gay sex police furry gay sex police](https://cdn77-pic.xvideos-cdn.com/videos/thumbs169poster/73/5a/42/735a4246ea28020f1fa8e625f34de790/735a4246ea28020f1fa8e625f34de790.10.jpg)
The only question is whether Republicans will have a veto-proof majority (or the presidency in 2024) to ban both abortion and gay marriage anywhere in the nation. Unless another justice leaves the court, the constitutional right to marriage for all is going to be overturned. So, in case folks weren’t listening when all those legal Cassandras warned that Roe was going to be overturned, please listen now: Gay marriage is too. He specifically mentioned Obergefell and Lawrence as examples of the same faulty reasoning behind Roe. To be clear, Justice Alito didn’t leave this to speculation. Sorry, women and gays, you’re not part of our white-male-dominated history and traditions, so the constitution doesn’t protect you. There are limits to government power, and no process can be “due process” if it transgresses those limits.īut in so-called Originalism, a once-fringe legal theory that is now the gospel of half the Supreme Court, a right must also be “part of the Nation’s history and traditions” to be protected. Connecticut, which held that the right to access contraception is as well.Īll those cases held that certain specific rights to bodily integrity and privacy, though unmentioned in the Constitution, are implicit in the broad guarantees of the 14th Amendment, as long as they were part of the “concept of ordered liberty.” It’s not part of the concept of liberty to police a woman’s uterus or a gay man’s bedroom.
![furry gay sex police furry gay sex police](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYUqkByXkAwDce9.jpg)
Texas, which held that all intimate sexual activity (including same-sex) was too and to Griswold v. Hodges, which held that all marriages (including my same-sex one) are protected by the Constitution to Lawrence v. If the reasoning of the draft becomes the majority opinion-and it is worth stressing that this is by no means assured, since it is a draft and may well be watered down by other justices-then it applies equally to Obergefell v. Wade.īut that’s only the beginning of the end. So we got Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and now, if this draft becomes the majority opinion, we’ve got the end of Roe v. Even after the unprecedented and norm-shattering mistreatment of judicial nominee Merrick Garland, many centrist voters didn’t care and some left-wing voters didn’t think it was enough to stomach voting for Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court ranked at the bottom of Democrats’ concerns in 2016, while it was at the top of Republicans’. But “you”-by which I mean the large majority of voters who say that women have a right to control their own bodies-didn’t listen.