News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/31872665. Parent comment

Re: by mmastrac on Saturday June 25, 2022 @12:59AM (#31872737)
Somewhat amusing that one of the justices suggested reconsidering all of the "big" cases of the past but omitted Loving v Virginia for some odd reason.

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thoma...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by corkybeta on Saturday June 25, 2022 @01:40AM (#31872867)
What threshold has to be met to be substantive due process? Does Loving meet that criteria or is it a lesser due process ruling?

The Wikipedia page also mentions the equal protection clause; will the ruling survive if only one basis of the ruling falls?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by bckr on Saturday June 25, 2022 @02:24AM (#31873025)
I think GP finds it amusing because one because one of the conservative justices is in an interracial marriage.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by missedthecue on Saturday June 25, 2022 @02:06AM (#31872956)
Is Loving based on the privacy clause like Roe, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell? I don't think it is.
[ Parent | on HN ]