George Washington University Officials Defend Clarence Thomas' Free Expression Rights
The university's own students are often not so lucky.

Officials at George Washington University announced this week that they would not remove Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from the faculty at the university's law school. Thomas has lectured at the law school since 2011, co-teaching a constitutional law seminar. Following Thomas' vote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, John Kay, a rising junior at the university, began circulating a petition demanding that Thomas be removed from his post.
The petition, which now has over 9,000 signatures, argues that "with the recent Supreme Court decision that has stripped the right to bodily autonomy of people with wombs, and with his explicit intention to further strip the rights of queer people and remove the ability for people to practice safe sex without fear of pregnancy, it is evident that the employment of Clarence Thomas at George Washington University is completely unacceptable."
In an interview with The Hatchet, G.W.'s student newspaper, Kay said that "it's unacceptable that [Thomas is] on campus because this decision and then the three decisions that he's actively going after explicitly are actively endangering the lives of the students on campus."
On Tuesday, G.W. Provost Christopher Bracey and Law Dean Dayna Bowen Matthew sent a universitywide email announcing the school's intent to ignore calls to fire Thomas. The pair argued that "debate is an essential part of our University's academic and educational mission to train future leaders who are prepared to address the world's most urgent problems."
The university "will neither terminate Justice Thomas' employment nor cancel his class." The email also noted that Thomas' views "do not represent" the official views of the university.
Though this move is laudable, G.W. officials have not always been so consistent in their defense of free speech principles—at least not when it comes to defending students' rights.
In February, posters critical of the Chinese government appeared on the G.W. campus. The posters satirized the 2022 Olympics, which were hosted in Beijing, condemning the nation's human rights abuses. The posters were designed by Badiucao, a dissident Chinese artist based in Australia.
Students began filing complaints about the posters, alleging that the posters "[discriminated] against Asians," as one student group's letter claimed. The university quickly announced an investigation into the incident, seeking to find the students responsible for the flyers. In response to the incident, Mark Wrighton, the university's president, wrote that he was "personally offended" by the posters.
However, following involvement from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and criticism from Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), the school backtracked and announced that it would not discipline those who distributed the posters.
Consistent support for free expression on campus is difficult to come by. It's one thing to publicly defend a Supreme Court justice when faced with public pressure. It's another to muster the courage to defend the rights of relatively powerless students when administrators are faced with the full force of their classmates' fury.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These fucktwat GenZers have nothing better to do than try to cancel a SCOTUS judge. GTFO and get a job.
Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day using my laptop. (res-25) This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
.
instructions here:☛☛☛ https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
"GTFO and get a job."
Maybe a job in Human Resources?
Maybe, as future lawyers, it would behoove these activist students to actually look at the fucking law from a Constitutional framing and understand the decision. They might, you know, break the decision down by looking at it from multiple perspectives of the law rather than one, narrow view. JFC these kids are idiots. Privileged, spoiled, elitist idiots. God bless them. And save us.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (eny-10) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>> http://usjobs85.tk
John Kay, a "rising junior" should learn some science. "Bodily autonomy" may apply to "people with wombs" (women?) but doesn't include fetus/babies who have DNA unique from the mother's, and are therefore NOT part of HER body.
"doesn't include fetus/babies who have DNA unique from the mother's"
Yes, it is a unique individual inside the female's property: her body. If it is unwanted, it is a trespasser, and since the female owns her body, she should be able to evict the trespasser from it until the point at which the trespasser can survive without her body.
The posters were made by a Chinese. How many of the protesters were Chinese? I bet not very many, and most of them were probably paid by the CCP, or more likely told to protest if they wanted to keep their visa. All other protesters were cultural appropriators.
All other protesters were pro-Chinese. Instead of investigating to find out who put up the posters, they should have been investigating the ones protesting the posters.
Pro-Chinese isn't the same as Chinese. White pro-Chinese are culturally appropriating and showing their white privilege.
"debate is an essential part of our University's academic and educational mission to train future leaders who are prepared to address the world's most urgent problems."
Didn't they get the memo that "urgency" is a value of white supremacists?
The petition, which now has over 9,000 signatures, argues that "with the recent Supreme Court decision that has stripped the right to bodily autonomy of people with wombs
There is a very successful experiment being undertaken with the youngest generation, and my favorite part is Reason isn't even noticing it.
The pair argued that "debate is an essential part of our University's academic and educational mission to train future leaders who are prepared to address the world's most urgent problems."
Psst, your future leaders are trying to disappear women.
"people with wombs"
That's what RGB said (after the Ministry of Truth sanitized it for public consumption).
Isn't noticing or is an enthusiastic cheerleader for?
I would stick by "isn't noticing" at best, and at worst, thinks it's a side-show orchestrated by Jerry Falwell.
Just don’t pounce.
I thought the preferred term was "Utero-Americans."
"I'm not a breeder, I'm a woman, said the man."
"The email also noted that Thomas' views "do not represent" the official views of the university."
Why would a university have an "official opinion" on something? So now you're going to get your degree from a college that shares a particular opinion on various subjects?
They might not be noticing it, but they are parroting it.
"...The university "will neither terminate Justice Thomas' employment nor cancel his class." The email also noted that Thomas' views "do not represent" the official views of the university.
Though this move is laudable, ..."
What's laudable about it? No one has a 1st amendment right to hold a chair at a university, especially ate a private institution, and Thomas is a nasty piece of work who already has 1/3 of the students (combined grad and undergrad) signing a petition to dump him. He fortunately represents a tiny portion of Americans, and even of SC judges who have at least claimed to not be coming after gay rights and contraception, and who's views are based on anger. Here's some results from the Roe ruling which he signed onto:
"...Two Republican governors, Kristi L. Noem of South Dakota and Tate Reeves of Mississippi, were asked on Sunday news talk shows about the case of a 10-year-old girl impregnated by her rapist. Are they really insisting that, regardless of the physical harm that giving birth could cause someone so young, the child be further tormented and forced to have the baby? Yes.
Reeves said these are such a “small, minor” number of cases. He wouldn’t say there should be an exception. Noem defended forced birth, insisting, “I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy.” The tragedy of forcing a 10-year-old to undergo a pregnancy and the pain of childbirth does not register with Noem.
These are not anomalies. Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) said, soon after the decision overturning Roe was announced, that, in his view, a 12-year-old impregnated by incest should be forced to complete her pregnancy. Herschel Walker, a Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia, would agree apparently since he wants no exceptions. Not even to save the woman’s life. Ohio state Rep. Jean Schmidt has called forcing a 13-year-old rape victim to give birth an “opportunity.”
....The New York Times reports, “There are no allowances for victims of rape or incest in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee or Texas.” In Idaho, a woman would have to file a police report to obtain an abortion, something virtually impossible for incest victims and others who live in fear of their attackers.
The monstrous cruelty of such bills shows how little many conservatives care about the well-being of women and girls who have already experienced the unbelievable trauma of sexual violence.
But it gets worse. Many states no longer consider exceptions for the health of the woman or create dangerous uncertainty. In the real medical world, where doctors and patients make decisions based on probabilities, the result of such abortion laws can be deadly for women. If abortion is legal only with the “imminent” risk of death, women can be left in peril, facing what can become fatal complications later in pregnancy — when the chances of survival have declined.
In Tennessee, for example, doctors are supposed to prove the woman couldn’t have lived without an abortion. (They must prove “the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”)
NBC News reports:
Arizona’s 15-week abortion ban provides exceptions for emergencies when continuing the pregnancy will “create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” for the mother. Oklahoma’s recent ban, the most restrictive in the country, is focused on life-threatening situations.
Mental health is almost never seen as enough of a reason to justify an abortion under the laws, said Carol Sanger, professor of law at Columbia University and the author of “About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in 21st-Century America.”
Republican candidates for governor in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and joined with antiabortion groups to seek bans “that would not allow the procedure even if the mother’s health were endangered,” The Post reports.
Forced-birth advocates can hardly be called “pro-life” when they are willing to gamble with the lives and health of women. To say women will die because of abortion laws or will suffer untold harm, both mental and physical, is not hyperbole. It’s reality for women who are now deprived of the right to make their own decision about their health and even their lives.
When you treat women like less than competent adults, and insist that others, who may have little or no competency, weigh the risks to her health and life, you wind up not with a culture of life but a culture of devaluing women’s lives."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/05/forced-birth-abortion/
The irony of the left now noticing that individuals need freedom to thrive and flourish is beyond belief sometimes. You are aware that you are a gigantic hypocrite?
No he isn't aware of that. He is too angry at the sight of an uppity negro having an opinion to know much of anything.
It is kind of the same way they all suddenly decided there was such a thing as a woman. Just like that, none of them needed to be a biologist to know what a woman was.
You are aware that you are a gigantic hypocrite?
And vice versa...
Looks like someone can't handle a strong black man. Feeling a little bit of white fragility there Joe?
At some point old white men like you need to understand that it isn't 1955 anymore. Black men have opinions and they are going to express them. And you are not always going to like those opinions. I am sorry but "how dare that uppity Negro say that" just isn't going to work anymore.
Everybody has a right to an opinion until it conflicts with mine.
That is right. And for white leftists, that rule is doubly true when it comes to black men. Thomas didn't even write the decision. Alito wrote it. But, Thomas is the one the white left is most angry at. That is because the white left cannot tolerate a black man with an opinion. The white left has always been and remain the most racist people on earth. They have the same view of blacks that they have always had; it is just that now they couch it in nice sounding language rather than using words like eugenics.
White Democrats upheld slavery right into and during the war which upended their world. They upheld mandated segregation as long as they could, until they could force that into mandated integration.
The Democratic Party has had racism at its heart for 200 years and show no sign of slowing down.
You'd have a point about Southern Democrats up to the CRA and VRA. Thereafter? Nope, same recycled bullshit to hide that nowadays the GOP is the national party of racism and white grievance.
No. Democrats stopped being so overtly malevolent towards blacks. But white Democrats are today even more racist than they were in the past. Here is the scientific proof of how racist white Democrats are
https://bigthink.com/the-present/white-liberals-language/
In a separate series of experiments, the researchers asked white participants to select words from a list to draft a hypothetical email to a stranger. Each recipient had been given a stereotypically white or black name — such as “Emily” or “Lakisha” — and the researchers had ranked each word on the list for competence and warmth.
The results showed that participants who self-reported liberal views tended to avoid words that could make them look competent when addressing the black recipients, but not white recipients. Again, conservatives showed no significant difference in the language they used to white and black recipients
If you are a white liberal, chances are you are a racist. Just because you don't mean blacks harm doesn't mean you don't consider them inferior and are not a racist. It just means you have a white savior complex. And don't think blacks don't see this. You think they don't but they do. Blacks loath white liberals. They just don't say it to your face.
The experiment may well be true, but doesn't address questions like, if you received a resume from someone, would you discriminate against them? If you're on a jury, are you more likely to convict a black defendant? Etc. No doubt there are some white liberals who have a patronising or condescending attitude to black Americans.
But I note that right-wing racists just lurvs to deflect from their own deep racism by pointing out minor examples from the other side.
"Just because you don't mean blacks harm"
Maybe not in the subjective sense, just as it would be possible for a white Democrat to support Jim Crow segregation as "best for both races" and subjectively feel a warm fuzzy feeling about what a good person he was.
Objectively, however, white Democrats are still doing harm, now as then.
You'd have a point about Southern Democrats
Last I cheecked Boston and Chicago weren't in the South.
And the 70s were after the CRA and VRA were signed.
You ignorant fuck, you are celebrating another states rights victory which strips individual rights and is more reaffirmation of the fact that today's GOP would have never enforced the union and the ending of slavery. Lincoln would be a RINO who Trump would have claimed was sleepy or some other bullshit and you'd all go right along. The game flipped in the 1960s and with blacks before that. They were all Republicans during Reconstruction, but most weren't after Roosevelt, and none after the 2 CR Acts of that era. You think they're stupid? You clearly are and can't even get your history right.
Getting back to Thomas, he's an affirmative action superstar who has tried to pull the latter up behind him ever since. He's also the bully who fucks prisoners to defend prosecutors, loves to flip the switch on death penalties, and by the way, mentioned all the privacy cases except Loving as being subject to his desires to put us back 75 years. Without Loving he can't stayed married to Trump in drag.
Getting back to Thomas, he's an affirmative action superstar who has tried to pull the latter up behind him ever since. He's also the bully who fucks prisoners to defend prosecutors, loves to flip the switch on death penalties, and by the way, mentioned all the privacy cases except Loving as being subject to his desires to put us back 75 years. Without Loving he can't stayed married to Trump in drag.
Alito wrote the opinion and you have nothing to say about him. You only rant and rave about Thomas. God you are a racist piece of shit. You cannot handle the idea that a black man doesn't think he has been told to think.
The world has passed you by. Enlightened whites are no longer going to control the law and the culture of this country. The country is becoming more brown, more Catholic, and in some areas more Muslim. That means white supremacist ideas like free abortion and open homosexuality and eugenics are no longer going to be accepted it.
Sorry, but the white America you grew up in no longer exists and the new America isn't going to look or think like you. I am afraid there is no longer any demand for white saviors.
Thomas is the jackass GWU has on staff. That's the thread Bozo.
I've said plenty about the religious freak Alito. If you're really a libertarian, celebrating this creep enforcing births on women should make you puke.
Dude, all the SC assholes who voted for eleiminatin Roe are from the lily white GOP. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
I love how you call Thomas an "affirmative action baby" because he is black he must be stupid.
In a separate series of experiments, the researchers asked white participants to select words from a list to draft a hypothetical email to a stranger. Each recipient had been given a stereotypically white or black name — such as “Emily” or “Lakisha” — and the researchers had ranked each word on the list for competence and warmth.
The results showed that participants who self-reported liberal views tended to avoid words that could make them look competent when addressing the black recipients, but not white recipients. Again, conservatives showed no significant difference in the language they used to white and black recipients
That is you and every other white Democrat in America.
Thomas was an AA appointee to Yale Law School. It's a fact.
So you're saying affirmative action is wrong? Or only when the supposed beneficiary wants to escape your plantation and needs to be reminded how much you did for him?
Sure Briggs and you other twits, that's why the democratic party is both led and fed by most blacks in America. Guess they're too stupid in your minds to not agree that the party who's conventions, voters, and leadership looks like the Wyoming Lutheran Conference - and dances just as bad - is not their saviors
that's why the democratic party is both led and fed by most blacks in America.
That is right, they are down on the Democratic plantation thinking what white people like you want them to. Just because they are Democrats doesn't mean people like you think they are equal are not white supremacists with white savior complexes.
Doofus, blacks have real power in the Democratic Party and a major part of determining it's policies and leaders. That's a fact.
It's a Faustian bargain.
Ok, so my recommendation is "don't move to France" if this is how you feel.
When you treat women
Men can get pregnant, too, Friday. Do try to keep up.
Still no signs of intelligent life here.
dude you should have spent your weekend outdoors.
I spent my weekend outdoors and it was full of unintelligent life. Especially the ones operating motor vehicles.
lol
Abortion is not banned, dude. The Court simply said that the federal government isn't going to get involved.
Also, it's not making women into criminals. The laws ban doctors from performing a medical procedure.
So nobody is forcing women to have children or locking them up in jail for terminating a pregnancy.
No, the absolute worst case is that the woman has to travel to a state where it is legal. Is that a barrier? No. It's an inconvenience.
So please, stop acting like it's the end of the world.
Also, not allowing insurance to cover something isn't the same as banning it. It just means that, oh no, the person wanting the doctor to do something has to like actually pay for it. Not-free does not equal banned.
The same argument was made in 1830. Slavery isn't banned, and all the Confederacy wants is a revenue-only tariff and to hold the Barbarian for Christianity. But that wasn't enough, for some escaped bondage across state lines. Then the Supremes upheld the Fugitive-Slave Law... But that was then and this is now. Using force to compel an individual into the labor of reproduction violates the 13th Amendment. Just as "Dred" changed jurisprudence, so did the 1972 Libertarian plank protecting pregnant women from bigoted bullies for 100 days. That line was copied into Roe. November will tell if the 19th Amendment is worth its salt in reaffirming the 9th.
"So nobody is forcing women to have children or locking them up in jail for terminating a pregnancy."
That's exactly what they're doing, rape, incest, or medical complications be damned. Given that nothing in the ruling deters certain states from making it illegal to help anyone leave their state to get an abortion and also would allow a federal law banning abortions everywhere, you don't understand it.
PS Those without live deep in Texas may not have the means to get out of state even if they don't pass a law making it illegal to leave, and they are trying to do that.
I never knocked anyone up until I was married, and I was quite the promiscuous lad. That's because I always wrapped the rascal.
Personal responsibility does come into play here. Can't afford a kid and can't afford an abortion? Use a fucking condom.
Mind your own fucking business sarcasmic. No one cares what you think about how they fuck.
If women are being forced to have unwanted kids like cattle as you say, then perhaps they should take steps to not get pregnant in the first place.
Sounds like a market ready for you to serve, Joe. Joe Friday's limousine abortion service. We bring you over the state lines to the aborto clinic by rook or by crook.
Thank Claude it's Friday!
The perfect slogan for your new business. We removed God so there is no question of the separation of church and state.
Planned Parenthood could shuttle some funds your way I'm sure. To the poors, Joe! They need you!
"That's exactly what they're doing, rape, incest, or medical complications be damned. "
No it's not. Doctors could be sent to jail for performing an abortion where it is illegal, but not the patient.
"Given that nothing in the ruling deters certain states from making it illegal to help anyone leave their state to get an abortion..."
Everything I've read on the subject said the exact opposite.
"...would allow a federal law banning abortions everywhere.."
Or allow federal law coerce states into allowing abortions by making it a condition of receiving federal money.
"...you don't understand it."
I understand just fine. I understand that requiring travel is not banning, and that outlawing a medical procedure makes a criminal out of doctors not patients.
What I don't understand is why people are acting like it's THE END OF THE WORLD!
sartcasmic, you're too stupid to follow. Buh-bye.
Cut the shit. They allowed it to banned and banned it is in much of America. They also allowed it to be banned nationally, which is the goal of many already.
What they did was overturn RvW which was justices legislating from the bench. That decision literally wrote the federal law regarding abortion. That's not the court's job. That's the job of the legislature.
So the decision was, in my opinion, the correct one from a constitutional and federalist point of view because it undid an act of judicial activism.
Besides, Democrats had literally fifty years to create some federal law instead of relying on legislation from the court. So it's their own damn fault.
I understand that your fealty to GOP policy overrides any pretense to the libertarianism you claim. No need to further beat this dead horse.
When you're reduced to insults I know you've lost the argument.
LMAO... You F'En manipulative clowns and your SCOTUS insisting Government legislate things = Federal Law....
UR just as dumb as Democrats.
correction: insisting Government *cannot* legislate things
Nothing is banned, Joe. Particularly in your Golden state of Utopiafornia.
Plenty is banned you twit. Read above.
woman has to travel to a state where it is legal
Funny; you don't see how people have to travel to escape [WE] mob tyranny in that... Or apparently believe it's no big deal... Or even dismissing the 'central planning' of medical procedures blessing from the State Gov-Guns. Or that "banning" marketable resources isn't an act of dictation...
No big deal.........................??
".....Diagnosing birth defects is what I do. Over the years many of my patients with lethal anomalies have elected to continue their pregnancy knowing that their child will die after delivery. These patients always have my full support. Sometimes this is in concurrence with their religious beliefs, though sometimes it’s simply meaningful for them to deliver and spend time with their child, even if only for minutes or hours. Most patients, however, elect to discontinue the pregnancy.
For these patients, abortion is now illegal in Ohio. Some people will travel out of state. However, many people will not be able to do so, particularly people of color and those living in strategically disenfranchised communities. Sometime soon, I am going to meet a patient who has no ability to leave the state, and I am going to have to tell her that her baby has a lethal condition, and she is going to have to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. It might be tomorrow. It might be weeks from now. But this is going to happen, and I cannot stop it.
This patient will go through her third trimester visibly pregnant. Strangers in the grocery store will congratulate her. She will have to explain her story over and over again to friends, neighbors and co-workers. She will be forced to experience labor and delivery, and then her child will die. The risks of term delivery are far greater than the risk of abortion, so she may also experience hemorrhage, pre-eclampsia, blood clots or other complications.
Ohio’s new law is unimaginably cruel...."
David N. Hackney is a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and chair of the Ohio section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/opinion/ob-gyn-roe-v-wade-pregnancy.html
Oh my God, we are no longer going to kill the sick and the unfit. The humanity. Take your racism and your eugenics somewhere else you fascist fuck.
Pro-Life uses the EXACT same tool as eugenics did....
Gov-Gun FORCE.
I just love how [WE] are 'killing' anything and not a doctor or pregnant women. This is Democrats propaganda 101.
No one has a 1st amendment right to hold a chair at a university, especially ate a private institution
Bruh. If Bozo the fuckin' Clown manages to get a seat on the Supreme Court and you are graced with the opportunity for him to teach at your university, you fucking do it. It doesn't matter what you think about what he says. It doesn't matter if you think his legal theories are complete hokum or if he keeps dead prostitutes under his porch. He's a sitting supreme court justice, meaning that what he says, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, is important and your law students are better served by listening to him talk, regardless of whether they agree with him, perhaps even especially if they stridently disagree with him because at the very minimum Clarence Thomas is only 74 years old; and depending on his health and the length of the careers of his students it is extremely probable that the very man himself could be on the deciding end of cases some of those very students eventually bring in front of the nation's highest court.
You can't reason someone out of something that gives them an emotional reaction. These are people feel like they need to be protected from things that offend them. Something that offends them is not to be learned from, it is to be shut out. Don't care. It's offensive.
What kind of adults are these people going to become? The world is an offensive place. They're setting themselves up for a life of self-inflicted misery.
They're going to spread that misery around, too. They're sadomasochists.
What kind of adults are these people going to become?
I see what you're saying, but I take issue with this particular phrasing. These people are already adults. They might not act like it, but they are. Not referring to them as adults, in some small way, concedes their point that they need to be infantilized.
You forget that these people have received all the wisdom they will ever need by the time they're 12 and it is their burden to teach the olds how the world really works. That the wisdom changes weekly and their ideas, when implemented fail spectacularly is just proof of how far gone the olds and their ideas are and how they've corrupted the world.
The biggest thing is they're conflating whether one has a constitutional right with whether it's good. Always a bad move to conflate what is legal with what is good in some moral sense.
Joe Friday, go fuck yourself with a garden hoe.
Alito: "Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.… None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history."
Wow, Alito has no knowledge of the deep roots of drug use, prostitution, and the like (whatever he means by "the like"???). They've been around longer than governments.
The great news here, is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" as the 9th amendment tells us exist, is getting more visibility and coverage in the MSM. People are asking what are our unenumerated rights, and Reason, i.e. Damon Root, to its/his credit has addressed the question.
Per Wikipedia "However, the Ninth Amendment has rarely played any role in U.S. constitutional law, and until the 1980s was often considered 'forgotten' or 'irrelevant' by many legal academics", academics no doubt kissing the butts of politicians to get overpaid government positions. I once called into a radio show that had Robert Bork as a guest, and asked Bork about the unenumerated rights the 9th amendment tells us exists, and he got mad and attacked me for asking such a stupid question, instead of answering the question.
My favorite SCOTUS nominee question: Would you please name some of the unenumerated rights to which the 9th amendment refers? I'd like to see some answers.
This is one of those few areas that I might actually point to "bowf sidez" for a reason as to why no one wants to touch the 9th, and probably why Roe was decided based on the 14th, instead of the 9th. Everyone, it seems is terrified of what someone might declare a "right under the 9th" without any limiting principles.
A right to free healthcare? A right to bear arms more expansive than that of the 2nd amendment?
If was fairly clear that in the drafting of the 9th amendment, that the framers saw that by enumerating certain rights, they saw this as a possible motive to extend the power of the state and so were careful to note that the state's power was to remain limited, not just within the scope of those rights which had been enumerated, but 'others not mentioned' etc.
Again, while this may scare "bowf sidez" (and for good reason) it seems fairly clear to me that consistent with the rest of the founding documents, the goal was to limit the power of the state. So, for instance, "the right to free healthcare" literally does the opposite and probably would not be consistent with the original framer's intent. However, the right to have an abortion probably would be as... to be fair to the left on this one narrow point, is seemingly the ONLY area in which they're interested in limiting state power. And I mean the ONLY fucking area. It just so happens that this is the one are where, depending on your perspective, the competing rights of third party are involved.
"...However, the right to have an abortion probably would be as... to be fair to the left on this one narrow point, is seemingly the ONLY area in which they're interested in limiting state power. And I mean the ONLY fucking area..."
You left out these other "fucking areas" you stupid cow: what you and your partner do in your bedroom, your use of contraceptives, who you may marry, what color skin your mate may have, equal rights of women, obscenity laws, legalizing marijuana, ending prohibition, libel laws, etc.
What is a woman?
Ask Senator Blackburn.
Is Blackburn a biologist?
Chaka Khan.
Something Long Dong wants to enslave?
The right to travel freely
The right to communicate and receive communications freely
The right to use force against agents of the government where your rights are being infringed upon
The right not to identify yourself to government agents
The right to vote even if you're a felon (I note that 2A forbids the denial of guns to felons.)
As a start...
The right to travel freely
Unless there's a pandemic, then only through the southern border, and only if you're not coming here in a mechanical contraption.
The right to communicate and receive communications freely
Dear Mr. Zuckerberg, if you don't start banning these accounts, we'll start doing it for you,
Sincerely,
The Democratic Party
The right to use force against agents of the government where your rights are being infringed upon
Insurrection!
The right not to identify yourself to government agents
Insurrection!
The right to vote even if you're a felon (I note that 2A forbids the denial of guns to felons.)
How do you even know if someone's a felon?
1. Facebook is private.
2. There was no infringement of rights prior to the 1/6 riot - unless you're one of those ignorant clowns who think that the election was stolen, or one of those white grievance crackers who think that a non-GOP president is inherently an infringement. The insurrection was entirely unjustified.
3. As for felons voting - if they can vote, you don't need to know. It also avoids things like the Florida voter purge of 2000.
who you may marry was specifically asking for government regulation of a union between two people.
what color skin your mate may have
What the fuck century are you living in?
equal rights of women
Define that.
obscenity laws
Misinformation.
legalizing marijuana
California.
ending prohibition
You're kidding, right?
"what color skin your mate may have
What the fuck century are you living in?
The Loving ruling was in 1967.
equal rights of women
Define that.
Suck my dick.
Who you can marry is an individual right .
Look up the rest you stupid fuck.
Wow, that argument was easier to win than even I thought.
Joe is stupid and immune to reason but he makes up for it by being a racist with a white savior complex. So, he has that going for him.
He's also a severe germaphobe, but we won't hold that against him (like we could get close enough to hold anything against ole Joe).
The Ninth Amendment merely states that the rights enumerated in the Constitution does not constitute an all-encompassing list. You want more Constitutional rights? Enumerate them in the form of an Amendment.
It was done with women's suffrage, and it was done to end slavery, and only another Amendment could negate them, as was done with Prohibition. SCOTUS can't overrule amendments. If unlimited abortions up until the 7834th trimester is as popular as leftist dolts like Joe Friday want to claim, then it should be no problem at all to have it officially added to the nation's foundational legal document.
Do the same with gay marriage. I'd probably sign onto it, depending on how it was worded. But creating rights out of thin air is not a power SCOTUS has, nor was ever supposed to have. Dobbs simply corrected a previous act of judicial activism.
The idiots currently lamenting how a group of unelected and unaccountable judges ended a 'right' that was hand-waved into existence by a different group of unelected and unaccountable judges are hilariously hypocritical.
13th Amendment... Fits a right to Fetal Ejection PERFECTLY as well as proclaiming the right to enforce in Nationally.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Here's is what is so funny... Pro-Life propaganda establishes this. The more they insist there is (2) people involved the more the 13th Amendment shines.
13th Amendment... Fits a right to Fetal Ejection PERFECTLY as well as proclaiming the right to enforce in Nationally.
Actually, it doesn't. Unless you somehow want to claim that the fetus is itself enslaving the woman, because if you do that then you also have to agree that it's a human life instead of a clump of cells.
..And would one of those 9th Amendment UN-enumerated rights be to actually take ownership of one's own self??
Out of all the possibilities I cannot think of more substantiated one than that... I mean seriously; Who amongst us doesn't believe they own themselves?
Emma Camp, like so many right-wing clingers, seems to focus intently on mainstream (liberal-libertarian) institutions in this regard while conspicuously ignoring the censorship that dominates conservative-controlled campuses (which tend to be censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, discriminatory, speech code-imposing, low-quality slack-jaw factories).
Carry on, clingers . . . but just so far and so long as better Americans permit, though.
Old racist white man screams about a black man having power and authority. You are absolutely the most reliably racist and disgusting human being I have ever seen Kirkland.
Disaffected, downscale, faux libertarian right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
These superstitious, bigoted, half-educated rubes can't be replaced -- by their betters -- fast enough.
>>"this decision and the three decisions ... are actively endangering the lives of the students on campus."
much much scarier cartoon than "I'm Just a Bill"
I thought we scraped bottom with the millennials, but I was wrong.
Another day at the faux-libertarian board where the MAGA crowd cheers on states forcing births because hey, their state governments, not the federal government and somehow mystically cannot take away the rights of people. Show me that in the Libertarian principles.
Shorter Joe Friday
God damn it that uppity nigger affirmative action baby Thomas done took away abortion. Without abortion the god damned colored will be breeding like flies!!
People like you never change. I remember people like you from back in the 70s. I thought they were all gone. Boy was I wrong about that. Racist fucking garbage.
Who is coercing women into having children? I missed that part.
I caught where women may need to travel because medical providers could face felony charges for performing one in their state, but nothing about banning travel.
Also, nobody is banning condoms. They're really good at preventing abortions. And a lot cheaper than traveling out of state.
He is terrified more brown children will be born. We can't have "unwanted children". And everyone knows what "unwanted" means; any child who isn't white and from the right kind of family.
I don't think so. Unwanted means unwanted by the mother, not parents looking to adopt. And plenty of unwanted children are raised by their mothers, who treat them like crap but enjoy the welfare/child support. There are plenty of unwanted children out there right now being raised by mothers who don't believe in abortion, so they went and had the kid. RvW won't change that. It's a fucked up subject.
Making the race argument is a cheap shot. I don't think many people really think that.
It is about race. This is the one debate where the race card is actually valid. "Unwanted" just means poor and usually brown. As of 2015, there had been 55 million abortions since 1973 of which 19 million were of black children. Blacks are 13% of the population but 34% of the abortions. Planned Parenthood abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods 79% of the time. That is not by accident.
There are two purposes to the sort of industrial scale legalized abortion like this country had under Roe; making money and limiting the population of poor and minorities. That is it. Money and eugenics was what it was always about. People like Joe Friday are racist as fuck.
That's more of a poverty thing than a race thing. How many white ghettos are there in this country? Don't white people prefer trailer parks? If there were places with a high population density of white folks living in poverty, then you'd see it in the abortion numbers.
White people poor or rich just don't get abortions at the rate blacks do. Abortions are not pushed on the white public they way they are pushed on blacks. In white America abortions are supposed to be "safe legal and rare".
The things you are talking about, could be dealt with by abortion schemes similar to Europe. Yet, the Democrats never wanted that. Why? Because what we have makes them money and it serves the purpose of keeping the black population down.
I still think it's more incidental than intentional.
People like Joe Friday are racist as fuck.
Minimum wage was originally created with the explicit intention of putting blacks out of work. And they were correct, because a price floor on labor hurts the unskilled the most. Now it's being sold as a pay raise for minorities with minimum wage jobs.
Thing is, economics hasn't changed. The results of minimum wage are still racist. Even if the intentions of its proponents are the opposite.
So I try not to ascribe racism to others. Siding with racist policies that are being sold as something else isn't racist. Is it?
White liberals sell things that benefit them and harm minorities as actually being positive for minorities. Minimum wage is another example of that. Just because they have a rationalization for pushing racist policies, doesn't mean they are not racist. They push these policies because they don't see or care about the harm they cause. They don't see or care about the harm because the harm is done to blacks and minorities. Call it what you want, but it looks like racism to me.
I think they're so blinded by their good intentions that they don't see the harm they cause. How can minimum wage put people, especially black people, out of work? That's not the intention. Blame racist employers! How can stimulus checks cause inflation that disproportionally harms blacks? That's not the intention. Blame greedy businesses! More blacks getting abortion than whites? Blame inequality caused by capitalism!
I really doubt that many of these people have racist intentions, even if what they support has racist results.
And the most racist of them all is those who see nothing but the color of people's skin (be it a pity party or a disgust)..... Minimum wage hurts more than just Black skinned people. It hurts all skin colors and the only skin-color based legislation I see is subsidies and special THEFT programs for certain skin colors marked (minorities).
Most of the states in the Deep South sarcasmic. Read a paper.
By the way, who made you the sex police. Mind your own fucking business.
I know how much people on the left despise the concept of personal responsibility. It's a very childish outlook on life. Like you're first raised by your parents, and when you become an adult the government becomes your mommy.
You're making the state government our mommy, you idiot, and here you are telling us to eat our vegetables or we deserve it's punishment.
By the way, your ridiculous white man's history with the idiot Briggs is quite amusing. No doubt the 2 of you are long standing civil rights activists and are hip to the jazz.
Most of the states in the Deep South sarcasmic. Read a paper.
Maybe you should.
https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/
From that article, you get these results when examining the states they say will restrict abortions.
- Abortion banned, except when mother's life is at risk
Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska (maybe), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas (maybe), Utah (law includes rape, incest, other exceptions), West Virginia, Wyoming (law includes rape and incent exceptions)
- Banned after six weeks (fetal cardiac activity)
Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas (currently)
- Banned after 15 weeks
Kentucky, Mississippi
It would probably be prudent for women who want to be sexually active to ensure they are using contraception, and to maybe take a home pregnancy test every other weekend so they know as soon as possible if they are pregnant.
Add Alabama to the first group. Not sure how I missed it.
The quote confirms my ststemant.
Maybe you should mind your own fucking business instead of cheering on states playing "mommy", as sarcasmic put it.
You guys are all for taking away individual rights.
The quote confirms my ststemant.
Nope. The only 'deep south' states banning abortion are Tennessee, Alabama and maybe Arkansas if you want to lump it in. The others allow it up until either six or fifteen weeks. Sexually active women who don't want to have a baby can take a home pregnancy test every couple of weeks to be able to get an abortion well before even the six week deadline. Only idiots like you think that's too onerous a burden.
You guys are all for taking away individual rights.
The only 'right' that people who think abortions should be legal up until the baby is crowning want is a right to murder. Murder is okay unless you use a gun I guess.
Now who was it that showed Trump (the MAGA crowd leader) was actually Pro-Choice.. Wasn't that you Joe??
No, but he was once.
Pro-Life is a rotten egg in the LIMITED government platform...
It belongs to leftards.. With it's amazing amount of emotional propaganda...
- If you wanna make it illegal for doctors to intentionally kill a fetus; then DO that - NOT FORCE women to reproduce..
- cries about, "but, but, but The Science...."
- cries about, "but, but, but The Children...."
Why it's leftard propaganda 101; Sucked up by sheeple minds of the right. Individual Liberty and Justice for all....... Don't be a hypocrite please; you're not doing anything but making the LIMITED government party look like F'En hypocritical fools.
I actually have made $18,000 within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money
online visiting this interface.> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I'm happy that GWU kept Thomas around; good decision on their part.
But nobody has a "right" to teach at a university, let alone a private university. If GWU didn't like what Thomas stood for or what he said, they ought to be able to let him go.
+1