The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie.
The reasoning is intended as, and will be used as, the can opener to break open countless protections against the most egregious exercises of state power, and limitation…
The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie.
The reasoning is intended as, and will be used as, the can opener to break open countless protections against the most egregious exercises of state power, and limitation on the ability of private groups and entities to harass and oppress other citizens.
Among the most obvious rulings that the reasoning in this reversal renders fair game for would be malefactors and self-appointed adjudicators of other people's habits:
Griswold vs Connecticut
Lawrence vs Texas
Eisenstadt vs Baird
Obergefell vs Hodges
But it extends far beyond that. The right of privacy is inextricably bound up in your right as an individual or group to have some control over, or at least recourse against, invasion by acquisition, deployment, and promulgation of personal information.
Someone here wrote "the deed is done" as if this was really about abortion and it's over. It hasn't even started. Abortion isn't the agenda. Its prohibition is just one waypoint on the journey to fulfill the agenda. The real agenda is to free up the government and private groups to combine and put the twentieth century, and the prospect of liberation from traditional "moral" tyrannies, back in the box they escaped from after WWII. To rephrase Rousseau: the Court finds humanity everywhere too free, and they need to put it back in chains.
America is descending into a future that may (and probably will) make societies like East Germany look like a libertarian paradise.
None, to an Alito-minded person. The fourteenth amendment has always been deeply hated by the revanchist trog conservatives except when deployed to protect corporations and other combinations of entrenched power, so the task of that sort of Jurist is to come up with a way to have the language without its meaning. There is that pesky last clause of the sixth amendment clause guaranteeing the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense". But that is easily dismissed, since the language says nothing about anyone actually having to make that assistance AVAILABLE-- I have the right in theory to have green eggs and ham --if I can get them-- but no right to have them if no one agrees to sell or give them to me.
Alito and his boys have a whole list of rulings to clear away. Such as all the jurisprudence that slowly, slowly, slowly negated Williams v Missisppi. Williams v Missisippi -- now there's a ruling of the sort that today's majority has in mind. When we get back to there, we'll finally have pure Federalism the way the Founders (and God, and his particular friend Alito) intended.
"The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie." - It's political cover. And also cover to pick and choose which unenumerated to keep vs toss.
I couldn't help but notice the parallel to Bush v Gore. Same concept. SCOTUS wants to control how they open the flood gates.
Yes, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read it. What a crock! Trust me, this will never happen.
As a manager in a unionized labor environment, whenever in a grievance the parties came to a stipulated resolution, both sides always agreed to a clause that stated something like "this ruling shall not be construed as binding or precedent in future grievances" -- and of course it always was. I think we always put it in there just because it was ridiculous and everyone knew it would be ignored, and everyone needs a good laugh at the end of a grievance arbitration.
Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas fall decidedly under the 14th Amendment. If SCOTUS has adopted full Humpty Dumpty jurisprudence so that the Constitution means whatever 5 or more justices want it to mean, then damn near all previous decisions are up for reconsideration.
The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie.
The reasoning is intended as, and will be used as, the can opener to break open countless protections against the most egregious exercises of state power, and limitation on the ability of private groups and entities to harass and oppress other citizens.
Among the most obvious rulings that the reasoning in this reversal renders fair game for would be malefactors and self-appointed adjudicators of other people's habits:
Griswold vs Connecticut
Lawrence vs Texas
Eisenstadt vs Baird
Obergefell vs Hodges
But it extends far beyond that. The right of privacy is inextricably bound up in your right as an individual or group to have some control over, or at least recourse against, invasion by acquisition, deployment, and promulgation of personal information.
Someone here wrote "the deed is done" as if this was really about abortion and it's over. It hasn't even started. Abortion isn't the agenda. Its prohibition is just one waypoint on the journey to fulfill the agenda. The real agenda is to free up the government and private groups to combine and put the twentieth century, and the prospect of liberation from traditional "moral" tyrannies, back in the box they escaped from after WWII. To rephrase Rousseau: the Court finds humanity everywhere too free, and they need to put it back in chains.
America is descending into a future that may (and probably will) make societies like East Germany look like a libertarian paradise.
Following the 'logic' in the draft, what basis is there for Gideon v Wainwright?
None, to an Alito-minded person. The fourteenth amendment has always been deeply hated by the revanchist trog conservatives except when deployed to protect corporations and other combinations of entrenched power, so the task of that sort of Jurist is to come up with a way to have the language without its meaning. There is that pesky last clause of the sixth amendment clause guaranteeing the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense". But that is easily dismissed, since the language says nothing about anyone actually having to make that assistance AVAILABLE-- I have the right in theory to have green eggs and ham --if I can get them-- but no right to have them if no one agrees to sell or give them to me.
Alito and his boys have a whole list of rulings to clear away. Such as all the jurisprudence that slowly, slowly, slowly negated Williams v Missisppi. Williams v Missisippi -- now there's a ruling of the sort that today's majority has in mind. When we get back to there, we'll finally have pure Federalism the way the Founders (and God, and his particular friend Alito) intended.
"The paragraph that says “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" is a brazen, flagrant, intentional lie." - It's political cover. And also cover to pick and choose which unenumerated to keep vs toss.
I couldn't help but notice the parallel to Bush v Gore. Same concept. SCOTUS wants to control how they open the flood gates.
Yes, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read it. What a crock! Trust me, this will never happen.
As a manager in a unionized labor environment, whenever in a grievance the parties came to a stipulated resolution, both sides always agreed to a clause that stated something like "this ruling shall not be construed as binding or precedent in future grievances" -- and of course it always was. I think we always put it in there just because it was ridiculous and everyone knew it would be ignored, and everyone needs a good laugh at the end of a grievance arbitration.
What rights are involved with those cases? Isn't one of the gay marriage and one sodomy or something? Would Loving also be endangered?
Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas fall decidedly under the 14th Amendment. If SCOTUS has adopted full Humpty Dumpty jurisprudence so that the Constitution means whatever 5 or more justices want it to mean, then damn near all previous decisions are up for reconsideration.
Stare decisis is for losers.
In Griswold, the court ruled that state bans on birth control violated marital privacy rights. The current court rejects the notion of privacy rights.
Yup. Queue up the next victim.
And I believe, interracial marriage... It's pretty scary stuff.