Although I’d rather eat glass than defend Alito, he does seemingly recognize that the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting rights not enumerated in the Constitution. He just believes that some of those rights don’t really belong, no matter what prior Supreme Courts have said. I think he’d agree that, as long as you define the right by whom had it in the past, then that right is protected by the Constitution. So rights like bodily autonomy, self-defense, medical decision-making, and inheritance are protected for by the Constitution. By framing it that way, he gets to protect rights that are important to property owning white men, while denying the same rights to other people. So the right to bodily autonomy and medical decision-making, which property holding white guys likely would have agreed at the founding and was upheld in Cruzan, includes the right to not be vaccinated or to not have unwanted surgery, but not the right to abortion. The right to marry, which, again, property holding white guys likely would have agreed at the founding existed and was upheld in Zablocki, exists, but not for same sex couples. Even a right to sexual intimacy might be protected (although this one is tougher for him), but only for married couples, not for same sex partners. As long as you define the right with enough specificity so that it only applies to those who have traditionally enjoyed it (again, propertied right males), then Alito seems OK with protecting it.
This way of defining a right by who has enjoyed it, allows Alito to pretend to respect stare decisis as far as SDP cases go, yet still include the bigotry and religious zeal of the right wing of the Republican party. It’s a win/win for him.
And, just so we’re perfectly clear, if this opinion does become the majority opinion of the court, it will be but the first step in an activist courts overturning many more recognized rights. Same sex marriage in Obergefell. Same sex intimacy in Lawrence. Contraception in Griswold. The right wing’s culture war will soon have judicial approval.
Following Draft SCOTUS Opinion, Legislative Leaders and Governor Newsom Announce Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine the Right to Choose in California
Published: May 02, 2022
SACRAMENTO – Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego), Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and Governor Gavin Newsom released the below statement following news reports detailing a preliminary U.S. Supreme Court majority draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and end federal constitutional protections for the right to abortion:
“California will not stand idly by as women across America are stripped of their rights and the progress so many have fought for gets erased. We will fight. California is proposing an amendment to enshrine the right to choose in our state constitution so that there is no doubt as to the right to abortion in this state. We know we can’t trust the Supreme Court to protect reproductive rights, so California will build a firewall around this right in our state constitution. Women will remain protected here.”
I lean toward the idea of Roe v. Wade being overturned as a relative positive thing.
Most of the country already lacks ready access to abortion services, thanks in part to increasingly restrictive state laws with bogus “patient protection” motives. Some states will continue to be havens, and such a Supco decision should energize progressives. Many Republicans are probably already dreading the fallout this November.
*just saw Biden interviewed on TV, talking about “the decision to abort a child”. Nice going, Joe!
Not having looked it up myself I would be very surprised if the number of states where abortion is practically illegal in any reasonable sense now is greater than than the number that have trigger laws that would come in to effect with this decision.
There’s an almost-too-reductive-for-SDMB(GD) saying I’ve used for decades … on this issue. I’m compelled to turn to it yet again:
It’s time to revoke the tax-exempt status for all churches. I mean … it might BE a tiny hardship to the faithful, but … hey … they’ll just have to drive a bit farther and spend a bit more money to get to a church, right ??
If there are any silver linings to this, it might be that (a) Congress will finally take action and write the protections of Roe v. Wade into Federal law, and (b) women voters will get fired up and help Dems win nationally, this November and for the foreseeable future.
Apparently, the main response from republicans today is to harrumph about the leak. I get the Chief Justice being mad about it though.
A statement from Chief Justice John Roberts (complete):
Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case. Justices
circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential
deliberative work. Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does
not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the
case.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., provided the following statement:
To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the
integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected
in any way.
We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks
alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees
have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial
process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of
that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work
here.
I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the
leak.
Just to take this out to its illogical conclusion …
During the pandemic, the shift to Work-From-Home allowed a lot of people formerly tethered to larger metropolitan areas to move to smaller towns in less densely populated states, often for a cheaper housing cost and better quality of life.
This makes me wonder how many of those urban expats are LGBTQ, and who moved from blue cities to purple/red towns … in states that – given the opportunity – would enact/enforce these sodomy laws again.
And, no: it doesn’t always have to happen in order to traumatize and terrorize a person. It only has to be institutionally codified and possible.
I wonder if the Americans With Disabilities Act is on shaky ground now, too. I’ve got a neighbor a few streets away with a wheelchair ramp in his front yard. What an eyesore [END SARCASM]
