Griswold is a landmark decision recognizing a “right to marital privacy” that was violated by a state contraception ban, and it’s a stepping stone in the path that led the Court to Roe. The case is key to understanding the law that Barrett’s nomination threatens to disrupt.
It is precisely “your freedom to buy contraception” that is under threat when Justices on the Supreme Court want to overturn the decision that recognizes your right to do so.
A staffer on the Judiciary Committee sends over this exchange Sen. Kennedy (R - Louisiana) had with Barrett on Griswold v Connecticut and the right to privacy at her Circuit confirmation hearing in 2017.
Worth watching Hawley’s reaction to Kennedy’s questioning if he goes there

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with southpaw

southpaw Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @nycsouthpaw

14 Oct
It cannot be overstated how clearly bullshit the Post “secret emails” story is. It comes from a known conduit of Russian disinformation, who says the information has been in his possession for nearly a year while he rabble-roused about this very subject and never disclosed it.
Giuliani held this through impeachment, through a senate investigation, etc., then feeds it to a friendly paper 20 days out from an election. Responsible reporters should make Giuliani’s conduct the center of attention and skepticism here, not his payload of sketchy info.
If Giuliani’s conduct doesn’t convince you to be wary, consider the anonymized DE shop owner who says he doesn’t know who his customer is but for a beau biden fdn sticker on the device, yet purportedly created an invoice addressed to “Hunter Biden” including phone and email
Read 5 tweets
13 Oct
In a loose and free-flowing opening round with Chairman Graham, it seems to me Barrett has answered a lot of questions about cases that may come before the court in the future (e.g. an extended discussion of potential follow-on cases to Heller and Obergefell).
It seems to me this may make it difficult for Barrett to retreat behind the usual dodge nominees rely on to get out of tough questions (that they can’t discuss cases that may come before the court at all).
Now, after commenting substantively on potentially overruling Brown v. Board, on the scope of Obergefell, on whether there’s precedent in the forthcoming ACA case, when asked by Feinstein about potentially overruling Roe v Wade, Barrett invokes the dodge.
Read 4 tweets
10 Oct
Would you accept that the Senate majority (i) holding open vacancies by refusing to vote *in any way* on Obama's judicial nominations at all and (ii) rapidly confirming Trump's nominees to those vacancies is, at least, contrary to the constitutional design?
A 2018 Senate minority report that makes the case in detail, and traces the pattern back to earlier presidents:…
Another chart from that report:
Read 5 tweets
10 Oct
A story from the memory hole: In 2013, Republicans threw a huge fit over "court packing" when Obama tried to simply fill three existing vacancies on the eleven-member DC Circuit. Then-Rep. Tom Cotton introduced legislation to reduce the size of the court.…
In the Senate, Chuck Grassley also introduced legislation to shrink the DC Circuit by three judges with immediate effect--changing the size of a court with the conscious purpose of denying Obama the opportunity to nominate additional judges to it.…
Contra Grassley's statement, the Judicial Conference of the US said at the time that the court's workload required 11 judges.

"People are laughing because it's obviously a blatant political move," President Obama said.…
Read 5 tweets
10 Oct
This answer suggests they have been quantifying his viral load in the PCR tests and not releasing their findings.
Of course his brain is smooth peanut butter so take it with a grain of salt
Newest letter from Dr. Conley—who has previously admitted lying to us to keep things upbeat—shows that he is pushing the decreasing viral load line as well. Note he stops short of saying the PCR test is negative.

If all this is true, why don’t they release the numbers?
Read 8 tweets
10 Oct
Dr. Conley said this yesterday, but Trump contradicted him in a radio interview, saying he was still on the steroid dexamethasone. No one knows what’s true.
“I don’t take it anymore,” Trump now says of dexamethasone.
Note the large bandaid on the back of his hand.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!