Griswold (contraception) Lawrence (same-sex sex) Obergefell (same-sex marriage) Privacy (pretty much anything)
Funny how Thomas didn't mention Loving vs Virginia (interracial marriage). "The Court ended its opinion with a short section holding that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.[40] The Court said that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, and it held that depriving Americans of it on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional.[40] These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
Yeah it's not just about PTO, and don't think that red states won't try to jail them for that as well.
Abortion affect all women of every race, income level and education level. The impact this will have on women in tremendous. So many more women will have to drop out of school or work because of this, which I think is part of why many men support this. It's a means of control.
I did, it sounds like massive rationalizations. Roe v Wade was built on the ideas of privacy and personhood, and a 7-2 decision that was impartial. This decision is based on "it's wrong" - that's their argument. That the decision was wrong and should be overturned. That there is no right to abortion. That there is no right to privacy (which is absurd given you can not conduct a search without a warrant so clearly there is a right to privacy). Now you have 6 justices all picked for the one purpose to get rid of Roe v Wade come up with legal gobbligook to overturn it. This was the stated goal of the conservative movement, and entrenches this as a political ruling and not one based on jurispudrence
well, as Alito makes clear today, Casey basically abandoned the privacy argument of Wade and shifted pretty much entirely to the due process theory disagree, maybe five, but if you read Roberts' concurrence you get the real sense this is the last thing in the world that he wanted "gobbledygook" is rather overstating it yes, among others. And in a sense, "to the victor go the spoils." I'm not sure why ANYONE simply assumes that a liberal majority on the Supreme Court is or should be the norm. Where did THAT inalienable progressive right come from completely, 100% disagree with the bolded
You can post these but realize that all of these justices openly lied about overturning Roe. Not sure why anyone should believe anything else that's come from them. They all. All of them. All said Roe was precedent not to be overturned, and they did it anyway.
Did you see the Miranda rights ruling from earlier this week? The timing of the decision release is key here. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/politics/supreme-court-miranda-rights/index.html If it's not clear now what this court is doing to reshape this country into an autocratic oligarchy then I don't really know what to say. They are saying it out loud what their purpose is. The right has always been antagonistic to Democracy, but never this brazenly rejecting the majority of Americans having a seat at the table. John Adams hated Democracy, and personal freedoms for everyone. Especially women, and slaves. But in the past we as country tolerated, and compromised with the John Adams'. Now we have people that hold the views of John Adams but are brazen enough to just take the power they need to dominate the majority against their will.... We are truly in an unprecedented situation, and stuck with freaking Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema as the only people with any power to do anything about it, and likely forcing voters to have to show up in force against all odds to somehow get people in office that won't be sucked in by corruption like Manchin and Sinema. I really really don't like our odds for being able to stay as a Democracy much longer, and it all starts with the Supreme Court. It started when they said that corporations have the ability to buy off Congress, and the beginning of the end seems to be a fully emboldened Ginny Thomas Court just saying F-it... lets do this now.
I think if people had read the full section of the Thomas concurrence (only part of which has been selectively posted here and elsewhere), I think folks would see he's not "coming after birth control next" or anything of the sort. He's simply saying that the Court really should revisit similarly sloppily-reasoned cases and find new Constitutional homes for these other, non-abortion-related rights . . . at least that's how I read it.
Curious how selective he's been with the ones he'd like to 'revisit' I'd say. just so happens to be more sexual rights I guess, just a coincidence I guess...
I'll give you Roberts, but I still think the judicial arguments made are rationalization to get the right result vs actually interpreting the tenets of the constitution. My understanding of the privacy argument is that it comes from the due process theory - the majority of justices mentioned privacy even if that wasn't mention by all in the majority. The court shouldn't be divided into liberal vs conservative like it is now. The decision in RvW was not along party lines such as this case is. The court should not be about "to the victor goes the spoils" - the whole point of the Supreme Court is to be above that idea and to ensure that our rights and freedoms don't change with who wins an elections but are fundamental to our nation. That clearly failed today.
I'm not sure that is the same thing. This ruling is about suing a police officer not about throwing out evidence in court.
you're missing entirely (or omitting) the distinction made in the opinion that abortion differs from ALL those other privacy rights in having the compelling state interest in protecting the life of the unborn. This is why Roe's attempt to "draw the line" between where the state's interest begins and where it ends (the viability issue) is itself a seed of its own destruction. One cannot now simply choose to deny flatly that the state has no such interest. Roe did not argue that; Casey did not argue that; and nobody now can argue it. why? who says? perhaps the "victor goes the spoils" line was a bit too flippant. But the point remains that Presidents get to nominate Supreme Court justices, and the Senate gets to confirm them. That's how the system works.
