U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ripped the highest court in the land over its double standard on language surrounding abortions.
In his concurring opinion issued in Jones v. Mississippi decision on Thursday, Thomas tucked in a criticism of the court’s hypocrisy in considering juvenile criminals as “children” while pretending that young girls who want to have abortions are responsible enough to choose.
“When addressing juvenile murderers, this Court has stated that ‘children are different’ and that courts must consider ‘a child’s lesser culpability,’” Thomas wrote. “And yet, when assessing the Court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, Members of this Court take pains to emphasize a ‘young woman’s’ right to choose.”
While the Supreme Court ruled that judges may give juvenile murderers life sentences, Thomas cited multiple abortion cases decided by the high court containing commentary from justices who were quick to note a teen’s ability to choose, such as in Lambert v. Wicklund, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.
“It is curious how the Court’s view of the maturity of minors ebbs and flows depending on the issue,” Thomas noted….
The above comes from an April 23 story in TheFederalist.com.
God Bless Justice Thomas, he is on the right side of history. This honorable Catholic man needs our prayers to help sustain him in the battle.
I wish people would stop using the phrase “on the right/wrong side of history”. Nobody can possibly know what the future holds, and it’s a meaningless assertion anyway. You can be on the right side of history but be wrong. You can be on the wrong side of history but be right. It’s just pompous bombast that makes the person saying it feel good about his stance.
It means that future generations will judge you right or wrong. It is usually used as a way to put others down although STUB used it to praise.
Maybe I have to read the article for the third time, but the “phrase” you mentioned was not mention in the article, so why bring it up here?
Read the first comment. A commenter brought it up.
“Choose” to kill a baby and you’re a woman, an adult. Kill a neighbor and you’re a boy or girl, a child.
Is Orwellian logic an oxymoron?
Doesn’t the same logic apply to minors seeking transgender surgeries and hormones, tattoos, utilizing tanning parlors and other issues as well?
Or, do the Democrat Party bosses, Hollywood and “mainstream media” determine, on a case by case basis, who is a child and who is an adult?
Many girls having abortions may not be entirely culpable (due to coercion, lack of knowledge, and more).
Yet, isn’t consistency (rather than arbitrariness) more logical, “fair” and just?
Who we elect as our representatives and the propositions we vote for do have consequences.
A 21-year-old California man who pleaded guilty to the murder of a neighbor girl in 2015 was sentenced as a juvenile Tuesday and could be released in as early as four years.
Adrian Gonzalez entered the plea on April 13 in Santa Cruz as soon as the case was transferred to juvenile court, the Santa Cruz Sentinel reported.
Gonzalez was 15 at the time he kidnapped, raped and killed 8-year-old Madyson “Maddy” Middleton.
Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge John Salazar said he had no choice but to remove the case from the adult court system because of juvenile justice reforms, the Sentinel reported.
In adult court, Gonzalez could have faced two consecutive life prison sentences for murder, kidnapping, sexual penetration, two counts of lewd and lascivious behavior and intercourse with a minor, plus misdemeanor destruction of evidence.
In the juvenile system, Gonzalez will be eligible for release at age 25.
In 2017, Salazar found Gonzalez — then 18 — fit to be tried as an adult.
Then, state lawmakers in 2018 passed Senate Bill 1391, amending Prop 57 to bar courts from allowing minors younger than the age of 16 to be tried as adults. After subsequent legal challenges, the State Supreme Court upheld SB 1391’s constitutionality in a February ruling.
Should Mr. Gonzalez be treated as a child or an adult? (What might Maddy’s parents think about justice for their daughter?)