Gay marriage has existed for as long as marriage has, it’s just best documented when it involves emperors.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriag...

But you know what doesn’t have a long historical precedence? Automatic weapons, or protecting money as speech.

You're describing the "living constitution"[1] view, which has not been the dominant position among Supreme Court justices for some time.

Now they're all "strict constructionists"[2], who think the opposite of what you describe: that the constitution should be interpreted just as it was written.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

I’ll grant you automatic weapons though

It has, but not as a right. The Hippocratic oath specifically bans it:

> Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.

— Hippocratic Oath (AD 275, or earlier)

> Interracial marriage has existed for pretty much all of human history

is not the answer to the question originalism is asking. It asks whether there is a historical precedence for protecting that action as a right.

You don't need to look any farther than this very ruling! Abortion has been practiced since the beginning recorded history (and likely much longer) and books like the bible even instruct you on how to perform one. That history has no bearing on Alito or Thomas.

Not really, that depends on which translation of Numbers 5 you're looking at. It's not clear at all that the "Ordeal of Bitter Water" was supposed to induce a miscarriage.

to be clear, its pretty irrelevant to the argument because the bible is just one such example of the history of abortion. There are hundreds more and if it would help you can pretend I mentioned one of those instead.

The approach that Thomas favors is "text, history, and tradition". The words - as written - taken in light of what the author(s) intended and what was happening at the time.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/abortion-ethics-ge...

As best I can tell it would be entirely legal for the US government to sell someone sentenced to life in prison to a private party.

That would be an anomaly in setting judicial precedent. If legal precedent was formally acknowledged for historical reasons, then we would be having a really long conversation on civil rights, _all_ civil rights.

And the issue may not be gay marriage, but straight up sodomy laws, which were introduced as religious inspired laws, most extensively Judeo-Christian. For these to stand, we would need to ignore the separation of church and state.

  "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,"

This sounds like it needs a source.

As far as I understand, anti-abortion laws started getting traction in the 1800s. Before that, these were scattered and mostly religious inspired. Also, Hammurabi doesn't make any references to voluntary abortions.

The court found otherwise, you can read the majority's evidence in their opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf starting on page 17:

"The “eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like),” Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 7), all describe abortion after quickening as criminal. Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise explained that if a person has “struck a pregnant woman, or has given her poison, whereby he has caused abortion, if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated, he commits homicide.” 2 DeLegibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae 279 (T. Twiss ed. 1879); see also 1 Fleta, c. 23, reprinted in 72 Selden Soc. 60–61 (H. Richardson & G. Sayles eds. 1955) (13th-century treatise)."

They go on for a few pages going over common law before discussing the historical record in the US.

Unsure if you're presenting that as the human history that exists "in Thomas's mind" or actual history