Protesters plan to target Justice Clarence Thomas’ home after he said SCOTUS should now revisit gay marriage and contraception after end to Roe as pro-choice extremists plan ‘Night of Rage’
Protesters are planning demonstrations outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday night, after he revealed he now has laws protecting gay marriage, gay sexual activity and contraception in his sights, after axing Roe v. ウェイド.
Following Friday’s landmark decision, Thomas called on his fellow jurists to overturn previous rulings that followed similar legal precedent.
The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion of the decision penned by Thomas, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex sexual activity, and citizens’ access to birth control.
It comes as the Supreme Court controversially elected to strike down Roe v. ウェイド, 早い 50 year-old decision that granted women the constitutional right to abortion.
Protesters in Washington, D.C., shared arrangements to carpool together on Friday evening.
‘激怒? 荒廃? Pissed the f*** off? So are we,’ tweeted Our Rights DC.
Pro-choice extremist group Jane’s Revenge promised a ‘night of rage’.
Tensions over abortion have spiraled ever since a draft opinion was leaked last month, signaling that the court was about to overturn protections.
An armed man was arrested on June 8 outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and charged with attempted murder.
国土安全保障省, in a memo on Friday obtained by 私の部分を完成させるために働いています, said it expects violence could last ‘for weeks’ from domestic violent extremists (DVEs).
‘We expect violence could occur for weeks following the release, particularly as DVEs may be mobilized to respond to changes in state laws and ballot measures on abortion stemming from the decision,’ the bulletin said.
‘We base this assessment on an observed increase in violent incidents across the United States following the unauthorized disclosure in May of a draft majority opinion on the case.’
As he condemned the court’s decision on Friday, President Joe Biden urged protesters to remain peaceful.
‘I call on everyone no matter how deeply they care about this decision to keep all protests peaceful, 平和, 平和, 平和,’ 彼は言った.
‘No intimidation. 暴力は決して受け入れられません.
‘Threats and intimidation are not speech. We must stand against violence in any form, regardless of your rationale.’
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called on fellow jurists to overturn previous landmark rulings after the court nixed Roe v. Wade on Friday
Protesters plan to target the street where Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni live
Protesters gather outside the First Street United States Courthouse in Los Angeles on Friday afternoon
Abortion rights activists show their anger outside the Supreme Court in Washington DC on Friday
Demonstrators in Washington DC took to the streets on Friday after the decision was announced
Cari Schaffer (L) and Hailey Valdez hold signs as protesters gather outside the First Street United States Courthouse in Los Angeles on Friday
A woman cries outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning after the court rules that the ‘Constitution does not confer a right to abortion’
担当者. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared outside the Supreme Court among the crowds in the aftermath of the Supreme Court releasing the Dobbs decision that ends abortion protections
Pro-life activists cheer outside the Supreme Court Friday morning after learning that the high court had overturned Roe v. ウェイド
Democratic members of Congress march out of the Capitol Building toward the Supreme Court to join pro-choice protesters outside the Supreme Court Friday morning
その. Elizabeth Warren joins the crowd in front of the Massachusetts State House after the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. ウェイド
Protesters on Friday afternoon gathered in Union Square in Washington DC, with members of Congress addressing the crowd of several hundred.
‘In almost half of this country, states are ready to ban abortion,’ said Ilhan Omar, a Democrat representing Minnesota.
‘Outright ban abortion. That means if you are sick, if you are raped, there is incest, you are forced to have that baby or die.’
The Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge in the capital was briefly closed after a man climbed the 1,445ft structure to protest the decision.
[object Window], hundreds gathered on Friday afternoon at Washington Square Park in lower Manhattan.
In his separate opinion also released on Friday, トーマス – the court’s longest-serving justice – welcomed the guidance, but noted how it falls short of addressing citizens rights’ apart from abortion.
The 74-year-old justice, an appointee of President George H.W. ブッシュ, went on to declare the court should reconsider other cases that fall under previous due process precedents.
トーマス’ argument was entrenched in the belief that since the Constitution’s Due Process Clause was found not to secure a right to an abortion in Friday’s ruling, the court should apply that same logic to other landmark cases.
He cited three in particular – including 1965’s Griswold v. コネチカット, which allowed for married couples to buy and use contraception, and 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, which allowed same-sex couples to legally marry.
トーマス’ argument was entrenched in the belief that since the Constitution’s Due Process Clause was found not to secure a right to an abortion in Friday’s ruling, the court should apply that same logic to other landmark cases
Thomas cited three in particular – including 1965’s Griswold v. コネチカット, which allowed for married couples to buy and use contraception, and 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges, which allowed same-sex couples (写真) to legally marry
President Joe Biden addressed the nation from the White House’s Cross Hall on Friday calling it ‘a very solemn moment’ and a ‘sad day for the court and the country.’ 軍事的に島を占領することは「最悪のシナリオ」になるでしょう: ‘If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. A whole range of rights’
Perhaps most shockingly, でも, the jurist suggested the court also reexamine Lawrence v. テキサス, A 2003 judgement that ruled that nixed some states’ century-old criminal sanctions on citizens who committed sodomy.
All have to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process, and equal protection rights – tenets also central to Fridays decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
「そのため,’ トーマス, 74, 書きました, ‘in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, ローレンス, and Obergefell.’
The justice, a known conservative, went on to declare that ‘we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.
Notably absent from the prior cases in Thomas’ concurring opinion was the 1967 case Loving v. バージニア, which barred the state from prohibiting interracial marriage.
Thomas is in an interracial marriage, as the justice is black and his wife Ginni Thomas – a conservative activist who absorbed Trump’s ‘big lie’ – is white.
The assertion from Thomas comes as members of the left had warned that such a ruling could lead to the reversal of other landmark cases, following Politico’s leak of an initial draft of the court’s decision in May.
Justice Clarence Thomas is pictured with his wife, Ginni – a controversial conservative activist, who was in touch with a key Trump adviser during the January 6 insurrection
Retiring liberal Justice Stephen Breyer warned in the dissenting opinion that the current court could also go after rulings that came before and after Roe that are based on the same legal reasoning including Griswold v. Connecticut and the landmark Obergefell, which legalized same-sex marriage
バイデン – who called Friday’s 5-4 vote to nix the 1973 decision ‘a tragic error’ – said of the draft opinion in May: ‘If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. A whole range of rights.’
「私はいつも言ってきました、そして今日あなたに言います [それ] we’re letting the states make those decisions, localities make those decisions, would be a fundamental shift in what we’ve done,’ the president added.
金曜日に, Biden also pointed out that three justices appointed by previous Trump – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were central to the overturning of Roe.
‘It was three justices named by one president – ドナルド・トランプ – who were at the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country,’ バイデンは言った.
‘This fall, Roe is on the ballot.’
カマラハリス, 副大統領, declared that voters will have ‘the final word’.
‘This is not over,’ Harris said on Friday, speaking at a conference in Plainfield, イリノイ.
‘You have the power to elect leaders who will defend and protect your rights.’
Harris continued: ‘Millions of women in America will go to bed tonight without access to the health care and reproductive care that they had this morning.
‘Without access to the same health care or reproductive health care that their mothers and grandmothers had for 50 年。’
Retiring liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who penned the dissent signed on by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, also predicted that the demise of Roe could have broader implications.
‘And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,’ Breyer wrote, after laying out how the decision suggests that a ‘woman has not rights to speak of.’
‘The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation,’ Breyer noted.
ブレイヤー, like Thomas, points to Griswold v. コネチカット – which permitted married couples to use contraception without government interference – and then to Obergefell, the landmark same-sex marriage decision.
‘They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions,’ Breyer said.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said the decision only pertained to abortion arguing that it was not ‘deeply rooted in history.’
Breyer argued that’s not possible.
‘So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid 19th century are insecure,’ Breyer wrote.
‘Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat.
‘It is one or the other.’