So if GE closes a division, is that murder?
Or at least self mutilation!
Alito would argue that even if there are unenumerated rights, then it is up to state governments to decide what those rights are, not the U.S. Supreme Court.
How about this:
Really? Seems to me that this particular court was seated specifically to make this very decision.
What surprises me is that anybody is surprised.
The closest cases that may answer your question are, in my estimation, Supreme Court cases Cruzan, Rochin and Winston v. Lee.
In Cruzan, the parents of a woman in a persistent vegetative state wanted to follow her wishes and remove the medical interventions that kept her body alive. In finding that they should be allowed to, the Court, quoting earlier caselaw, stated:
“”[n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."
and
"“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body, and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.”
They concluded the 14th Amendment contained a right to refuse medical treatment.
In Rochin, when police broke in his house to investigate illegal drug use, Rochin swallowed a couple of unidentified pills that were on the bedside table. The police ordered the doctor to pump his stomach to get the pills out as evidence. The Supreme Court found that the police activity “shocks the conscience” and violated the Due Process Clause.
And in Winston, the Supreme Court held that the state cannot require a defendant to undergo surgery to remove a bullet for evidence. The Court held that ''A compelled surgical intrusion into an individual’s body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion may be “unreasonable” even if likely to produce evidence of a crime". (although Winston relied more on the 4th Amendment than the Due Process Clause).
I heard those fences have been up for weeks.
Why would they be up before this? (really asking)
After 1/6, why not? (I’ll see if I can dig up where I saw this later.)
Cuz it has been 16 months since that happened and I assume the rabble had left.
I heard it was because of the guy that recently set himself on fire over climate inaction.
Was on Twitter, so grain of salt…
Does it seem odd that Alito’s opinion is all about the mother’s rights, and whether or not there is such a thing as a right to privacy – but never addresses the question as to whether or not a fetus has any rights that the state is bound to respect?
it seems like if the court had addressed that question, the right to privacy would be moot* If the fetus has no rights then it doesn’t matter what the mother does. if it does, then the state is obligated to respect those rights and disregard the mother’s.
*and this is the big difference between Roe, and Loving, Obergefell, Griswold.
It’s not a civil issue between the fetus and the mother, which might require a balancing of their rights, it’s the State’s interest in protecting the fetus that is weighed against the apparently non-fundamental right of the woman to her bodily integrity and medical decision-making. Alito says:
" Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed “potential life.” But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be more even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an “unborn human being.” Our Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated."
That sounds a bit extreme. Just because an entity is considered a person with rights doesn’t automatically confer on that entity the right to live in another person’s body.
For example, you can’t require somebody else to donate a kidney to you, even if you’ll die if you don’t get a kidney.
Certainly Kavanaugh, & Barrett, were, they were handpicked just for this.
“The ruling does not make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the States. “
“The overwhelming majority of Americans are pro-choice”
Assuming both statements are true, what’s the problem?
Let the states make their own laws regarding abortion.
The states aren’t people. What about the actual people who in each state might or not be in jeopardy of losing their rights? You don’t see a problem there?
Not just Roe, but also to overturn Establishment Clause and Free Exercise caselaw to expand the Christian theocracy, and to overturn Obergefell (same sex marriage) and Lawrence (same sex sexual relations). They’re hitting for the cycle.
Alito would say that they can’t lose rights that they never had.