Thomas says courts should rethink the precedent for contraception, same-sex marriage

When the US Supreme Court announced the decision of once established a constitutional right to discontinuedecades ago in a decision, Judge Clarence Thomas gave his colleagues access to contraceptive law. Encouraged to reassess same-sex relationships and other groundbreaking cases that protect same-sex marriages.

In favor of Friday, Thomas said Roev was the logic used by the conservative majority of the court for. Wadeand Planned Parenthood v. Suggested that it could overturn Casey. Similar consequences of recognizing the rights of other individuals: Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefellv. Hodges. In the Grizzwold case, in 1965, the court revoked a state law prohibiting the use of contraception. Lawrence v. Texas stipulated in 2003 that private sexual activity between adults agreed by the state cannot be considered a crime. And in Obergefell, in 2015, the court ruled that same-sex couples have equal rights to marry.

The same reason should be applied more broadly, as the majority ruled that the majority were "not in the form of'freedom'protected by the deadline clause" of the 14th Amendment. Insisted. 

"In the future, rethink all the precedents of this court's substantive legitimate process, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. You have to do it, "he writes.

But all the other justices did not agree.

Judge Samuel Arito, who wrote for the majority, "the court emphasizes that this decision relates to the constitutional right to abortion and not to other rights. Any of this opinion should not be understood as questioning unrelated precedents. Abortion. "

" The right to contraception and homosexual relations is essentially the right to abortion. Is different, "writes Arito. "

Alito has joined Thomas, as well as Judge Neil Gorsuch, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and Judge AmyConeyBarrett. Supreme Court Secretary John Roberts partially upheld the court's decision. But overturning Law and Casey would leave the state authoritiesan abortion limit.

Roberts agrees with himself. "I emphasize what the courts of today are saying. Overturning Roe does not mean overturning those precedents, nor does it threaten or doubt those precedents.

Still, Thomas's opinion is on how the court's ruling on Law and Casey could undermine the constitutional framework of litigation such as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. We are shining a spotlight on legal discussions. 

The three liberal justices who challenged the case warned that it could be a sign of what's to come.

"No one should be convinced that this majority ends up in that job," disagrees with Judges Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Cagan, and Stephen G. Breyer. Said.

"The rights granted by Roe and Casey are not independent. On the contrary, the court has settled them for decades, including physical integrity, family relationships, and childbirth. I've been free to connect, "they continued. "Most clearly, the right to end pregnancy stems directly from the right to buy and use contraceptives .... Second, these rights have recently become of same-sex intimacy and marriage. Leading to rights.

"These are all part of the same constitutional structure and protect autonomous decisions about the most personal life decisions."