Here’s the link to the Supreme Court’s website where they post opinions as they are released:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/
The 6 extremist justices signed onto Alito’s opinion overturning Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.
Excerpt from his opinion:
***The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. … We now overrule [Roe v. Wade and Casey] those decisions … ***
Thomas added his own crazy opinion:
***“due process of law” merely required executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative enactments and the common law when depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. … substantive due process lacks any basis in the Constitution. … For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.***
Excerpts from the dissent:
JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting.
For half a century, Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
This opinion was released June 21, 2022
ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT joined.
BREYER, filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN joined, and in which SOTOMAYOR joined as to all but Part I–B.
Part of the dissent:
The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” It next forbids them to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second.
This opinion was released May 16, 2022
ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT joined.
KAGAN filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR joined.
Part of the dissent:
A candidate for public office extends a $500,000 loan to his campaign organization, hoping to recoup the amount from benefactors’ post-election contributions. Once elected, he devotes himself assiduously to recovering the money; his personal bank account, after all, now has a gaping half-million-dollar hole. The politician solicits donations from wealthy individuals and corporate lobbyists, making clear that the money they give will go straight from the campaign to him, as repayment for his loan. He is deeply grateful to those who help, as they know he will be—more grateful than for ordinary campaign contributions (which do not increase his personal wealth). And as they paid him, so he will pay them. In the coming months and years, they receive government benefits—maybe favorable legislation, maybe prized appointments, maybe lucrative contracts. The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption. The campaign finance measure at issue here has for two decades checked the crooked exchanges just described. The provision, Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, prohibited a candidate from using post-election donations to repay loans exceeding $250,000. … In striking down the law today, the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop. The theory of the decision (unlike of the statute) is hard to fathom.
The Supreme Court commenced a revolution in Second Amendment law on Thursday. Thursday’s decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, involves a challenge to New York’s restrictions on the carrying of concealed firearms in public. A maximalist opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas dramatically expanded the scope of the court’s previous gun decisions, which limited the right of self-defense to the home. … Thomas included in his opinion that “any modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense” are also protected under the Constitution, even if they did not exist until recently. … [despite the fact] modern technology has made guns vastly more powerful and deadly, and the exponential growth in population creates new challenges that were not present hundreds of years ago. … Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts) clarified that states can still require licenses for concealed carry permits that may include “a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling” and states can still have “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in” [the Supreme Court buildings.] …What happens when the people are no longer allowed to protect themselves from mass slaughter through their elected representatives and are left at the mercy of unelected judges who do not care if they are shot to death?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/supreme-court-new-york-concealed-carry-law-gun-control-bruen.html
