abortion

Justice Clarence Thomas Releases Scathing Dissent…Calls Out Abortion For What it Really Is

The “right” to an abortion is a “legal fiction” Justice Clarence Thomas believes. He made it crystal clear in a scathing dissent that he is not happy with his allegedly conservative colleagues, especially Chief Justice John Roberts.

Abortion has no basis in the Constitution

In what’s being described as a “scathing rebuke,” Clarence Thomas made his abortion stance unmistakable. The infamous underlying Roe v. Wade decision “has no constitutional basis and must be overruled.”

In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court decided to strike down a Louisiana abortion law challenged in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo which required that “individuals who perform abortions at clinics have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital.”

Five of the justices found that law unconstitutional because “it places an undue burden on women seeking abortions.” Thomas questions the basic principles to the foundation of the entire issue. Not only is the majority wrong in the current case, he took 20 pages to explain the so called “right” to an abortion is a mistake that needs to be remedied.

A legal fiction pulled out of the shadows

“This court,” Justice Thomas argues, “created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the ‘legal fiction’ of substantive due process.” He can’t live with it any longer. “As the origins of this jurisprudence readily demonstrate, the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

All the way back in the mists of time in 1965, the justices “acknowledged the Constitution did not protect a right to privacy.” The Constitution is silent on the matter. Instead, the court got tricky and found the abortion basis they were looking for in the “shadows” of constitutional provisions.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court “explained that this right could be found in the ‘penumbras’ of five different Amendments to the Constitution — the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth.” Penumbra is defined as “the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.” In other words, the basis for abortion isn’t real, only shadowy “implications” of what’s real.

The quartering of troops and contraception

Back in 1965, “rather than explain what free speech or the quartering of troops had to do with contraception, the Court simply declared that these rights had created ‘zones of privacy’ with their ‘penumbras,’ which were formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Thomas writes that, “this reasoning is as mystifying as it is baseless.” They created a right to abortion out of thin air.

The associate justice is convinced that “the idea that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.” They would have worded things differently. When due process was carved out by amendment in 1868, baby killing was prohibited by law in “a majority of the states and numerous territories.”

“It would no doubt shock the public at that time,” Thomas points out now, “to learn that one of the new constitutional Amendments contained hidden within the interstices of its text a right to abortion.” The Roe v. Wade court didn’t “find” the right to kill babies, they planted it there. “The fact that it took this Court over a century to find that right all but proves that it was more than hidden — it simply was not (and is not) there.”

Justice Thomas is especially angry at Chief Justice John Roberts “for claiming to adhere to stare decisis, or precedent.” In other words, decisions made on bad interpretations of the Constitution shouldn’t replace the Constitution itself. “Because we can reconcile neither Roe nor its progeny with the text of our Constitution, those decisions should be overruled. Because we lack jurisdiction and our abortion jurisprudence finds no basis in the Constitution, I respectfully dissent.”

3 comments
  1. My current favorite Justice. I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with him. He has a remarkably clear aand consistent interpretation of the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article
liberals

Skirmishes Erupt as Liberals and Patriots Clash

Next Article
lawmaker

Angry Mob Attack Lawmaker, Set Fire to Home and Invade Govt Buildings

Related Posts