On June 24 2022, The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) overturned a major landmark decision that has been “law of the land” since 1973 – 49, almost 50, years ago.

Why is this such a big deal? The states have a ton of things they are in control of, why is this different?

Because the basis of Roe was the right to privacy and this has lead to other landmark decisions – and if they are going to overturn this Justice Clarence Thomas has gone on record to say they want to look at Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Griswold v Conneticut.

Well what are those other cases? Let’s start with the most recent:

Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Same-sex couples get the same rights as everyone else.

This is known as the major case that finally gave marriage equality to everyone. It’s known as the same-sex marriage case. At the time, in 2015, 36 states – along with Guam and D.C. – had recognized same-sex marriage equality. This case meant that in the eyes of the law – federally – same-sex couple are able to hold the same legal responsibilities as heterosexual couples. The people who held dissent on this case were – no surprise here – Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.

Lawrence v Texas (2003): The right to privacy in your own bedroom.

What do I mean by “privacy in your own bedroom”? Lawrence v Texas was the landmark case that was fought when an older man was arrested, along with another man for engaging in “sodomy” in his own home. Direct definition – per the oxford dictionary – is anal or oral copulation. Yeah, the state of Texas was (and is) still super involved with what goes on in your home, behind closed doors, regarding your sex life. That seems a little backwards. Now, originally, it was a scorned lover issue, the ex-boyfriend of the older man called saying there was someone with a weapon in the home. Sherriff’s deputies said they found the men engaging in intercourse. And charged them under an anti-sodomy law. Now, that begs the question on if there was illegal entry, but we both know the police would never do that. Nah. Never. Take a guess on who dissented. You guessed it! Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.

Griswold v Connecticut (1965): Having the right to family planning.

Oh yeah. Thomas wants to take contraception away. Your right to your very own body and if/when you want children. This case was put into place when Estelle Griswold was counseling and prescribing birth control to married couples. The ruling of the case stated that states had no right to ban contraceptives as it was a marital privacy matter. Note that word again – privacy. The dissenters? Now this was prior to Scalia and Thomas – so not them. But the dissenters were Hugo Black and Potter Stewart. I did not see anything damning about Hugo Black, but I am not opposed to being further educated on him. Potter Stewart has opinions about how “obscenity laws” were only permissible to “hardcore pornography.” And he often voted “conservative,” in regards to the 60s. He was known as a “moderate” justice. Later, Eisenstadt v Baird (1972) would expand this to unmarried couples, followed by Roe in 1973 (privacy and right to safe and legal abortions), and Carey v Population Services International in 1977 (privacy and legal right of anyone 16 years of age and older to obtain contraception).

It won’t stop at these other cases either. Texas Senator John Cornyn put out a really backwards tweet saying “Now do Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education.” For those who may not know, those two cases are the main basis of desegregation for schools – which have lead to the desegregation of schools for Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans through other landmark cases.

Justice Thomas forgets to mention Loving v Virginia in his quote:

Per Justice Clarence Thomas’ poor words and opinion: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, … Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” referring to decisions on contraception, sodomy, and same-sex marriage as future cases for the Supreme Court to reverse. In regards to unenumerated rights, the opinion also said, “The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of ‘liberty’.”

Why Do I mention Loving v Virginia? Here’s why. Loving v Virginia was the landmark case that made falling in love and marrying someone of another race legal. Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman named Virginia ‘Ginny’ Thomas (nee Lamp).

“Well, duh he wouldn’t want to take his rights away!” Sure, it’s kind of low hanging fruit, but let’s be realistic here. Looking at the other justices, I will not mince words – they’re all white. And they are mostly conservative white.

Lady Justice is dead: Is the US becoming theocratic?

The best way to explain this is “Would you be comfortable as a Jewish parishioner having Roman Catholic ideals pushed on you?”

Six SCOTUS Justices are Catholic – and not the ones you think – 1 is Jewish and now, we have one Protestant.

The Catholic justices include Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomeyer and Thomas. Justice Kagan is a practicing Conversative Jewish woman, and Justice Brown is a practicing Protestant. Gorsuch is a Episcopalian.

Six Justices this past June enacted their religions opinions on the basic human rights of bodily autonomy. These six people: Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Thomas, used their power to enforce their religious opinions. It is an abuse of power. Plain and simple.

Over all, with the SCOTUS making these ruling, it is showing a lack of ethics, and frankly an all out blurring of church and state. The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the constitution, and the amendments made to it. That is not being done here as they are blatantly ignoring the 9th Amendment. Which is an overarching amendment that states people have other rights not enumerated in the constitution. Such as bodily autonomy.

I used to believe that the SCOTUS was fighting for the rights of people, but 6 of them are trampling all over that belief. And it seems like the other two branches, that are supposed to “check” the SCOTUS if it gets out of control, do not give two shits about the people that pay their checks.

Unfortunately, we are seeing feckless behavior. America is being a plutocracy, ruled by the bourgeoise. And they are using our government – as they do in a plutocracy, to line their pockets while the rest of us are losing our homes, food, and stability. Something has to change, and there isn’t much I can recommend – without citing 1789 France.

Perhaps, there is a future where we get the rights the previous generations fought for back. Perhaps we go the way of 1790s France and take a page out of Robespierre’s book. I am, unfortunately, not a seer. Not much seems hopeful right now, and I get that. As a whole, it really seems like we have no power currently.