You’re invited! Join LifeSite in celebrating 25 years of pro-life and pro-family reporting at our anniversary Gala August 17th in Naples, Florida. Tickets and sponsorships can be purchased by clicking here.
AUSTIN (LifeSiteNews) – Texas’ chief legal officer would be willing to challenge a Supreme Court decision that protects homosexual acts.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told NewsNation anchor Leland Vittert that he would be willing to test the state’s anti-sodomy law at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) depending on the law’s constitutionality.
The statement followed a question about Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, in which he stated that SCOTUS should reexamine all its due process precedents, including a ruling that declared laws banning homosexual acts unconstitutional.
Paxton, speaking to Vittert on June 24, was asked if he would be willing to defend a law that would challenge SCOTUS’ due process precedents when dealing with sodomy.
“Yes. I mean there’s all kinds of issues here, but certainly the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don’t think there’s any constitutional provisions dealing with,” Paxton said. “They were legitimate issues, and this is one of those issues, and there may be more. So, it would depend on the issue and depend on what state law had said at the time.”
You may have seen the headline about this already making the rounds, but it’s worth watching Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) say he would defend the anti-sodomy law that SCOTUS struck down in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 — that ruling established protections for same-sex relationships. pic.twitter.com/zWdigWGyoD
— The Recount (@therecount) June 29, 2022
When pressed by Vittert that he would not rule out defending such a law, Paxton said “My job is to defend state law, and I’ll continue to do that. That’s my job under the constitution, and I’m willing to do that.” When pressed further, Paxton said “I’d have to take a look at it. This is all new territory for us so I’d have to see how the legislation was laid out and whether we thought we could defend it.”
“Ultimately, if it’s constitutional, we’re going to defend it,” Paxton concluded.
Ever since the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the ongoing debate over the barbaric practice of abortion back to the states, left-wing zealots, politicians, and rioters have taken to the streets and the airwaves to fan the flames of division.
And perhaps no one has epitomized this unhinged rage more than twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Taking her anger out on Justice Clarence Thomas, Clinton has once again shown her propensity for bitterness, hostility towards our Constitution and rule of law, and hatred towards those with differing philosophies from her own.
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition in support of Justice Clarence Thomas against hateful attacks by radical liberals like Hillary Clinton.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which saw a 6-3 majority rule in favor of overturning both Roe v. Wade and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was a long time coming: In 1973, seven Justices of the Supreme Court (all males) created a phony constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air, opening the floodgates to practically unfettered access to abortion across the nation and resulting in the killing of more than 60 million innocent, unborn babies in the nearly 50 years that followed.
But with Roe now out of the picture, this decision will officially fall back to the states, who, by way of their elected lawmakers, may now opt to permit, restrict, or even outright ban the practice of abortion altogether.
And while the majority opinion in Dobbs was penned by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, most of the left's ire in the aftermath of its publication has been directed at a different Justice: Conservative constitutionalist Clarence Thomas, currently the bench's only African-American member, who wrote his own separate concurrence acknowledging other past cases which were decided on similar, constitutionally-lacking bases that could potentially be revisited in the future.
Perhaps no disgruntled abortion supporter has gone out of their way more to deride this ruling and Justice Thomas than former First Lady and Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who let her utter contmept for the unborn, the Constitution, and Justice Thomas show in a CBS interview with Gayle King earlier this week.
.@HillaryClinton: "I went to law school with [Justice Thomas]. He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him — resentment, grievance, anger … Women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die.” pic.twitter.com/nUGWGFVJ3m— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) June 28, 2022
In her deeply personal attack, Clinton claimed that Justice Thomas, a Yale Law School classmate of hers in the early 1970s (when Roe was first decided), was a "person of grievance for as long as I've known him. Resentment, grievance, anger."
She then went on to criticize the court's ruling in Dobbs, repeating without evidence that "women are going to die" as a result, all while (predictably) ignoring the potentially millions of unborn babies who will now live because of Justices' timely decision.
So while pro-abortion liberals like Hillary Clinton continue to lament the outcome of Dobbs and smear conservative Justices like Clarence Thomas with personal attacks simply for abiding by the text of the Constitution, the pro-life movement and millions of Americans who believe in the constitutional right to life can take pride in nearly half a century's work to achieve the end of Roe, and begin the real work of ending the barbaric practice of abortion in the United States.
Now is the time to put out-of-touch elitists like Hillary Clinton on notice that momentum is on the side of life once again and that America is rejecting the culture of death that has penetrated our way of life for far too long.
Now is the time to stand with pro-life, conservative constitutionalists like Justice Clarence Thomas!
SIGN and SHARE this petition in support of Justice Clarence Thomas against attacks from leftists like Hillary Clinton, and thank him for courageously standing up for life and the Constitution!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Hillary Clinton attacks Clarence Thomas as a ‘person of grievance’ following Roe reversal' (LifeSiteNews)
Vittert’s questions came as a result of remarks made by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, in which he wrote that SCOTUS should reexamine its due process precedents in the wake of overruling Roe v. Wade.
“The Court well explains why, under our substantive due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,’” Thomas wrote. “For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote.
In Lawrence v. Texas, SCOTUS struck down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional based on due process arguments like those found in Roe.
Similar laws still exist in 15 other states. If SCOTUS overturns Lawrence, then those laws would immediately go into effect, according to the New York Daily News.
Rochelle Garza, a Democrat who is running against Paxton for attorney general, tweeted that “Roe was just the first — they won’t stop till they roll back all of our civil rights.”
Paxton has a history of combating LGBT ideology. In March, he warned that the Austin Independent School District violated Texas law by proposing a “pride” themed curriculum, which Paxton maintained violated Texas law. In September 2021, Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for its attempt to force businesses to implement gender ideology.
Earlier this year, Paxton announced in an advisory opinion that transgender “sex change” practices for minors constitute child abuse under the Texas Family Code.