SCOTUS to overrule Roe

[juanjo]

It appears that the Roe v Wade decision will be history come the end of June of the Supreme Court follows its usual process of releasing decisions in Fall term cases at the end of June. Alito's draft decision, in this case, is highly troubling both in terms of a woman's right to choose, as well as, in other areas as well. Alito specifically attacks the argument surrounding a "right to privacy" as not existing in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment states that there are certain rights not specifically enshrined in the Constitution which are nonetheless, reserved to the people. For as long as there has been a United States and even prior to the Revolution, there has been a concept in our law that there is a right to privacy inherent in all people. The 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is based upon that right of privacy. The right to speak, to believe [or not believe] as you see fit, and to assemble or seek redress is based on that right of privacy. The rights concerning marriage, procreation, etc are all based on that right. But Alito says it does not exist.

In his decision, Alito specifically calls out the Lawrence case banning sodomy laws, Obergefell allowing same-sex marriage, and a number of cases regarding access to birth control. He says they are not deeply rooted in our history as if that actually was a determining factor. I would point out that some deeply rooted concepts in our legal history are concepts like slavery, banning voting by women or non-whites, or treating women as chattel. Alito is specifically opening the door to attacks on a number of levels - a return to sodomy laws, a ban on same-sex marriage, restriction of access to birth control, and restitution of anti-miscegenation laws.

Remember that come November and do not forget it in 2024 or the foreseeable future. The far-right is intent on taking us back into a very dark place in the past.

 

[kgmets]

It appears that the Roe v Wade decision will be history come the end of June of the Supreme Court follows its usual process of releasing decisions in Fall term cases at the end of June. Alito's draft decision, in this case, is highly troubling both in terms of a woman's right to choose, as well as, in other areas as well. Alito specifically attacks the argument surrounding a "right to privacy" as not existing in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment states that there are certain rights not specifically enshrined in the Constitution which are nonetheless, reserved to the people. For as long as there has been a United States and even prior to the Revolution, there has been a concept in our law that there is a right to privacy inherent in all people. The 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is based upon that right of privacy. The right to speak, to believe [or not believe] as you see fit, and to assemble or seek redress is based on that right of privacy. The rights concerning marriage, procreation, etc are all based on that right. But Alito says it does not exist.

In his decision, Alito specifically calls out the Lawrence case banning sodomy laws, Obergefell allowing same-sex marriage, and a number of cases regarding access to birth control. He says they are not deeply rooted in our history as if that actually was a determining factor. I would point out that some deeply rooted concepts in our legal history are concepts like slavery, banning voting by women or non-whites, or treating women as chattel. Alito is specifically opening the door to attacks on a number of levels - a return to sodomy laws, a ban on same-sex marriage, restriction of access to birth control, and restitution of anti-miscegenation laws.

Remember that come November and do not forget it in 2024 or the foreseeable future. The far-right is intent on taking us back into a very dark place in the past.

Well written! Everyone is assuming that some pro choice person leaked the draft decision, but an alternative theory is that Alito himself or at least a fellow right winger is the leaker, because he wants the feet of Kavanaugh and Barrett cast in concrete by naming them as signatories knowing that Roberts is trying to peal off one or both of them into a do not overrule Roe but affirm Mississippi's 15 week rule, the thinking being by publicly naming them now, that would open them up to right wing excoriation if one or both go to the more moderate Roberts position now.

 

[tampa24]

In his decision, Alito specifically calls out the Lawrence case banning sodomy laws, Obergefell allowing same-sex marriage, and a number of cases regarding access to birth control. He says they are not deeply rooted in our history as if that actually was a determining factor. I would point out that some deeply rooted concepts in our legal history are concepts like slavery, banning voting by women or non-whites, or treating women as chattel. Alito is specifically opening the door to attacks on a number of levels - a return to sodomy laws, a ban on same-sex marriage, restriction of access to birth control, and restitution of anti-miscegenation laws.

Remember that come November and do not forget it in 2024 or the foreseeable future. The far-right is intent on taking us back into a very dark place in the past.

Thank you for that Juanjo. I'm not a lawyer, So I appreciate your input here.

Yes. Alito purposely brings up deep-rooted historical precedent as a pretext to possibly review some of the more modern rulings which you enumerate here. Owning slaves was considered a right, even though it was not specifically granted in the Constitution. If it's claimed that there is no Constitutional right to "privacy" then the government would seemingly have broad authority to snoop and regulate societal behavior to a great degree. And this comes from the party that claims to abhor everything about "Big Government", the boogeyman "Deep State", "Governmental Overreach", etc. The cynical hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is on full display here. The 4th amendment would all but go out the window if you follow the logic of this ruling.

 

[br6205]

The last government branch has now lost its place in history as the one respected branch of government above politics.

 

[tampa24]

The last government branch has now lost its place in history as the one respected branch of government above politics.

Yes. That may be the biggest casualty of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Just like House, the Senate and the presidency are all seen rightly as partisan political institutions...so too will the Supreme Court be seen as just another politically biased group of power brokers in the federal government.

 

[another1]

Hand wringing is one use of the hands, but I choose to put my hands to a different use!
Emails and direct messages to my Representative in the House, and tomy Senators will demand a vote to codify Roe is the first thing!
For those who are concerned about the filibuster, remember the Republicans suspended the filibuster for confirming Federal Judges, so suspending the rule for reviewing Federal Court Rulings should be easy.
A republic, if we can keep it!
Keep the government out of my body and my bedroom! Crude, but true.
Not since Dred Scott has the Court been this wrong. On the Wrong side of history and the will of the people.
Of course, the signature of the President should be easy to get!

 

[tampa24]

Keep the government out of my body and my bedroom! Crude, but true.
Not since Dred Scott has the Court been this wrong. On the Wrong side of history and the will of the people.

So true!

 

[chac54]

The last government branch has now lost its place in history as the one respected branch of government above politics.

Exactly my thoughts. We are on a very very dark path, I hope that light is found soon, bad things lurk in the dark.

 

[br6205]

As I said before the one good thing it has done is to get most women & some men so riled up as to vote this November making the lose of the house & senate less likely despite the vote rigging.

 

[tampa24]

Alito specifically attacks the argument surrounding a "right to privacy" as not existing in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment states that there are certain rights not specifically enshrined in the Constitution which are nonetheless, reserved to the people. For as long as there has been a United States and even prior to the Revolution, there has been a concept in our law that there is a right to privacy inherent in all people. The 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects is based upon that right of privacy.

That is the most worrying aspect of this Juanjo.

If the court decides that citizens have legal/constitutional right to privacy... How far can they run with that? The far right evangelicals here in the U.S. can become the equivalent of the Muslim mullahs of Iran or the Taliban of Afghanistan.

If they decide here in the U.S. that a lack of a legal right to privacy means they can outlaw abortion, where do they go next in turning back the clock? Can they outlaw gay marriage? Can they re-introduce anti-sodomy laws that make it illegal to have sex with someone of the same gender? Can they make it illegal again for a white man and a black woman (or a white woman and a black man) to have sex or cohabitate together in a private residence? Can they make it legal for a clergy person or a Justice of the Peace to refuse to marry a Hispanic and white person because it goes against their religious beliefs or their "conscience"?

Does it mean that the NSA will be given free rein to record every online statement and online search, every phone conversation and archive as much public camera footage of us as possible? The Republicans are the ones who seem most paranoid about these kinds of issues. But they're the ones who are playing a very risky game by gladly opening the legal door to more such abuse of government power, just to overturn abortion.

For the 4th Amendment and the 9th Amendment, with one S.C. decision after another it could a death by a thousand cuts.

 

[tampa24]

I just found this. And it encapsulates much of what Juanjo was alluding to in his earlier post.