Tuesday, October 4, 2022
Home news Gay Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. What...

Gay Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. What Is the Reconsideration of The Verdict Guaranteeing Legal Rights!

It’s been suggested that Clarence Thomas’ hypocrisy in calling for reconsideration of verdicts guaranteeing legal rights for homosexual persons but refusing to call for revocation of a similar ruling that allows Thomas to marry a white woman is hypocritical by a gay Connecticut Supreme Court justices.

Senior Associate Justice Andrew McDonald of Connecticut’s Supreme Court took aim at Thomas after the Supreme Court justice used a decision that repealed the constitutional right to abortion to publicly call for the top U.S. court to potentially reverse rulings that bar states from outlawing gay sex and gay marriage in a social media post.

What Is SCOTUS?

what is scotus

When it comes to federal cases, the United States’ top court, the Supreme Court of the United States, or SCOTUS, is the final word. Federal and state court proceedings involving federal law are subject to its final appellate authority. “All Instances affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party” are the only cases in which it has original jurisdiction.

Judiciary has the power to overturn a law if it violates a provision of the Constitution, and the court has that power. If a presidential directive is found to be in violation of the Constitution or statutory law, the court has the authority to invalidate it. However, it can only get involved in cases that fall under its purview as a court of law. When it comes to non-justiciable political concerns, the Supreme Court has concluded that it has no jurisdiction.

The Reconsideration of Verdicts Guaranteeing Legal Rights.

Gay Connecticut Supreme Court justice calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. what is the reconsideration of the verdict guaranteeing legal rights

According to Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was disingenuous in his request for the reconsideration of verdicts guaranteeing legal rights for gay individuals in the United States.
According to McDonald’s Facebook post, Thomas had not asked for the removal of a similar verdict that allowed Thomas, who is black and lives in Virginia with a white lady, Ginni Thomas, to be married to her.

It seemed to me as if Mr. Justice Thomas had a lot to say about my marriage today.” It’s strange that he didn’t have much to say about his ‘Loving’ marriage,'” explains McDonald. After overturning Roe V. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on federal abortion rights, Justice Thomas said that similar decisions on homosexual rights and access to birth control should be overturned as well.

Effectively Overturned.

Gay Connecticut Supreme Court justice calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. what is the reconsideration of the verdict guaranteeing legal rights

Thomas spoke well of my marriage today,” he said in a statement. McDonald, who married his husband Charles in 2009 while serving as a state legislator, said that he “oddly” didn’t have much to say about his “Loving” marriage. Using the term “Loving” is a reference to the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned a Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage. It effectively overturned all other bans of this kind across the country.

“Loving” plaintiffs Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, a white woman, and her black husband Thomas, a man of color, live in Virginia. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, the couple at the center of the case, had been sentenced to a year in prison for breaching Virginia’s legislation. In exchange for the suspension of their sentence, they agreed to leave the state and not return for a period of time equal to the length of their sentence.

The Country’s Second Openly Gay Justice.

Gay Connecticut Supreme Court justice calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. what is the reconsideration of the verdict guaranteeing legal rights

Dannel Malloy, the mayor of Stamford at the time, presided over McDonald’s wedding ceremony. Four years later, as governor of Connecticut, he nominated McDonald to the Supreme Court of the United States, making him the country’s second openly gay justice. Six years before Obergefell v. Hodges prohibited states from prohibiting same-sex weddings, McDonald married his husband.

A concurring opinion issued by Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday cited three previous Supreme Court decisions as “demonstrably wrong decisions”: the Obergefell decision, a 2003 decision that established a person’s right to have gay sex, and a 1965 decision that established the right to contraception for married couples. The fourth Supreme Court judgment, “Loving v. Virginia,” has the same legal basis as the other three, but Thomas failed to acknowledge it.

The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Gay Connecticut Supreme Court justice calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. what is the reconsideration of the verdict guaranteeing legal rights

On the basis of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s legislation violated “Loving.” No state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” according to this clause. Concurring with Thomas, he referred to three earlier Supreme Court judgments. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably incorrect,” Thomas argued, “We must fix the error” made in those decisions.

When reached by CNBC, McDonald declined to comment on the Facebook post. When asked by a Supreme Court spokesperson if Thomas would respond to McDonald’s article, Thomas did not immediately respond. in Obergefell, v. Hodges, Thomas argued that so-called antimiscegenation laws barring interracial marriage were not equivalent to similar laws banning same-sex marriage.

Related Articles:

The Idea that Antimiscegenation Laws.

Gay Connecticut Supreme Court justice calls out U.S. Supreme Court Justice. what is the reconsideration of the verdict guaranteeing legal rights

As Thomas pointed out in a footnote to his dissent, “the idea that antimiscegenation laws are analogous to statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman is both repugnant and false.” He pointed out that the existence of slavery in the colonies and later states was the basis for the early laws prohibiting inter-racial relations and marriage in the United States. This sad history is not shared by laws that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, says Thomas. As long as societies have acknowledged marriage, “the traditional definition of marriage” has prevailed.

Obergefell, the plaintiff in a case against Hodges, said on Friday that Thomas left Loving v. Virginia off the list of precedents that he wants to be reversed because “it hurts him personally.” On MSNBC‘s “The Reid Out,” Obergefell remarked, “But he doesn’t care about the LGBTQ+ community.” “I’m really concerned that hundreds of thousands of marriages across this nation are at risk and the ability of people across the nation to marry the person they love is in jeopardy,” Obergefell said on the show. And Justice Thomas’ omission of Loving v. Virginia, in my opinion, is extremely telling,” he continued. “

Marissa Figgs
I write picture books, for middle grade, and young adults, some of which have won prizes, been filmed, or become bestsellers. I've ghostwritten for Pixar and developed teen work for Alloy Entertainment. I think heartfelt writing is the finest. It doesn't have to be personal, but it must be visceral. You want them riveted from the first word, page, or sentence, no matter how painful or unpleasant, and that's my expertise.
RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular