Referee “No connection with abortion” vs Supplementary opinion Conservative Supreme Court Justice “You need to correct the error”
Three progressive justices “under threat of other constitutional rights”… Supreme Court, Absolute Advantage in Conservatives
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a case that recognized abortion as a constitutional right, it is observed that other rulings such as same-sex marriage and contraception could also be overturned.
Although the majority opinion of the Supreme Court distanced itself from abortion as a separate matter, it is because of concerns from the progressive camp that these rights cannot be guaranteed to last when applying the logic that ‘there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution and it is not protected by any other provisions’.
Chief Justice Samuel Erlito, who led the drafting of a ruling overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that guaranteed the right to abortion, said, “Nothing in this ruling should be construed as raising doubts about any other case unrelated to abortion.” He started to dispel concerns.
Because abortion is a matter of depriving one of ‘potential life’, it is intended to be fundamentally different from same-sex marriage, contraception, and homosexuality.
However, Justice Thomas Clarence’s supplementary opinion in favor of overturning the Law v. Wade case is a completely different position.
He said, “In the future, we have to review all previous precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” he said.
This is a Supreme Court precedent that recognized contraception, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, respectively.
The three progressive Justices who opposed the Law v. Wade case change did not hide their concerns about Clarence’s supplementary comments, saying in a minority opinion “no one should be convinced that the majority of Justices have done their job.”
“The right to ‘Raw v. Wade’ is not an isolated one,” they said. “On the contrary, courts have linked this right for decades with other freedoms, including bodily integrity, familial relations and reproduction.”
He noted that recognition of abortion is linked to the purchase and use of contraceptives, homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court’s majority opinion is hypocritical or shows other constitutional rights being threatened.
The Washington Post reported on the reaction of citizens concerned that the ruling would trigger the withdrawal of other safeguards.
Amy Martin, who has been married for 30 years, told The Post that she was gripped by fears that a ban on same-sex marriage could be the next target in the Supreme Court.
Scott Skinner-Thompson, associate professor of law at Boulder University in Colorado, said, “If we define freedom only in terms of the Bill of Rights or when the Constitution is ratified, we are locked in that era.
This was especially true for women and people of color.”
The WP said that many critics of the Supreme Court’s ruling fear it would be a watershed that would trigger the withdrawal of rights for racial, ethnic and homosexuals. said to have started
Currently, the ideological distribution of U.S. Supreme Court justices is 6 conservatives and 3 liberals.
This is the result of former President Donald Trump changing the composition of five conservatives and four liberals to a conservative absolute advantage when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was known as an ‘icon of progress’ passed away in 2020, and appointed a conservative person as his successor.
Accordingly, there is concern that the likelihood that the Supreme Court will make a conservative decision that is far from the general public opinion is considerable.
The U.S. Supreme Court on the 23rd, while the U.S. Congress passed a bill to substantially strengthen gun control in about 30 years after the recent mass shooting, ruled in a 6 to 3 decision granting the right to carry a handgun in public places. is a stark example.
/yunhap news
