Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevaroo
He was my pick although I wish he was a female just to watch the left melt even harder, but he won’t over change roe v wade (I’m pro choice) also won’t do anything with gay marriage (also pro gay marriage) he’s not “catholic” enough to ban contraception. I’m just worried about medicinal in recreational budz. Hope we can get a law changed without anything going to that decision.
|
Based on decisions he's barely to the left of Thomas and to the right of gorsuch and alito.
Here is how Thomas decided on Casey (the most recent major abortion case): Rehnquist and Scalia each joined the plurality in upholding the parental consent, informed consent, and waiting period laws.
However, they dissented from the plurality's decision to uphold Roe v. Wade and strike down the spousal notification law, contending that Roe was incorrectly decided. In his opinion,
Chief Justice Rehnquist questioned the fundamental right to an abortion, the "right to privacy," and the strict scrutiny application in Roe. He also questioned the new "undue burden" analysis under the plurality opinion, instead deciding that the proper analysis for the regulation of abortions was rational-basis.
In his opinion,
Justice Scalia also argued for a rational-basis approach, finding that the Pennsylvania statute in its entirety was constitutional. He argued that abortion was not a "protected" liberty, and as such, the abortion liberty could be intruded upon by the State. To this end, Justice Scalia concluded this was so because an abortion right was not in the Constitution, and "longstanding traditions of American society" have allowed abortion to be legally proscribed. Rehnquist and Scalia joined each other's concurrence/dissents. White and Thomas, who did not write their own opinions, joined in both.
Thomas was also in the dissent in the gay marriage case (upheld 5-4 by Kennedy).
Thomas was also in the dissent in Lawrence v Texas, which stated that sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
Thomas wasn't on the court for Griswold (contraception case) but I'm going to guess he would have been in the dissent because a strict constitutionalist wouldn't consider a right to contraception a privacy right or a marital right.
Thomas will rule your way on marijuana if you want it legalized. He won't if you want it controlled.
If the argument is that these decisions won't be overturned because they are the law of the land well guess what, dred Scott was the law of the land and brown v board overturned it. No reason it can't be done again.