Women’s Equal Rights?
Bring back Slavery?….
Voting access and Rights?
The Political gauntlet has been throwndown by Judge Alito and his Right leaners on the High Court….
The vote in November could have the US Congress covering the Courts’ majority’s back?
Only President’s Biden’s ability to veto things as a stopper?
And we KNOW Biden ain’t to much of a fighter, Right?
Afraid of America 2022….
Want to go BACK to 1950’s….
America could be letting just 5 people, who shit like evryone else, slide it back to a place most of us thought we left behind a long time ago…..
By now, Americans will have awakened to the disclosure of a draft Supreme Court opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that erases Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood from the Court’s jurisprudence — and with them, a pregnant person’s constitutional right to reproductive autonomy. There are reports that Chief Justice John Roberts initially voted against overruling precedent but wanted to find a way to uphold the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, which bans abortion after 15 weeks, and now plans to dissent.
Beyond what Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization portends for the future of abortion rights is the striking method of analysis he employs in the reported draft. Despite his many efforts to reassure that its decision “does not undermine” other constitutional rights “in any way,” it actually outlines a roadmap for the withdrawal of other cherished constitutional rights.
We should not take Alito at his word that the court might go no further after eliminating abortion rights, and a careful reading of his draft suggests a number of reasons to be concerned the current court could target other rights.
First, we should always take with a grain of salt what judges say in trying to contain what other judges might say in the future. Just as Alito and several other justices felt no need to stick with a precedent that has been on the books for nearly 50 years, there is nothing in the Dobbs draft that binds future justices according to the fine distinction Alito draws when he says that “what sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely” is “the critical moral question posed by abortion.” Many other rights, too, pose difficult moral questions, such as a parent’s right to educate a child, the proper place for religion in the public square or the rights of sexual minorities.
Alito suggests that the fact that many Americans see abortion as the destruction of potential life marks the dividing line between the right to abortion and other rights, but it’s not the only place where one might draw the line between morally fraught matters. Five justices could easily say later that other rights are morally difficult and should be returned entirely to the vagaries of legislative politics….
Alito’s text-narrowed-by-tradition approach — if applied consistently — would seem to eliminate other rights that aren’t explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, including the right to birth control and same-sex marriage. After all, neither marriage nor contraception is mentioned in the Constitution, and it’s exceedingly unlikely that a legal test that hews so closely to tradition would yield the answer that birth control or same-sex marriage was deeply rooted by the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in the late 19th century. This narrow method of understanding individual liberty authorizes a return to traditionalist, and perhaps even sectarian, modes of analysis — it all depends on how five justices understand our nation’s sense of “ordered liberty.” And laws once outlawed the use of birth control and same-sex marriage — Alito’s justification for denying that the right to reproductive autonomy is deeply rooted in tradition….