The reactionary, “conservative” majority now dominating the US Supreme Court (and several appeals courts) have relied primarily on the founders not to reshape what they clearly despised American society practical matter predicting all of the individual rights that the Constitution could possibly anticipate.
Taking an opportunistic approach of ignoring previous precedents and cases in order to undo the decisions it no longer likes, the focus of right-wing jurisprudence for the past fifty years or more has been on reducing or increasing perceived deviations from the original text of the Constitution eliminate the name of a conservative “originalism”. It is no coincidence that this has diminished the federal government’s power to assist the American people on issues such as environmental, labor, and social policy – none of which are mentioned in the Constitution.
Both roe Decision and its author, Griswold v. Connecticut (who established a liberal interest in married couples’ right to contraception) assume that the constitution provides for a clear, if unwritten, right to privacy that extends to private, personal decisions such as the decision to reproduce.
This basic interpretation – that the Constitution mean something not explicit to say-is an abomination for conservatives, not because it violates any sacred allegiance of James Madison, but because it threatens their right to impose their beliefs on others. In some cases, they have the right to enforce their theocratic and patriarchal beliefs (for example, in the case of Amy Coney Barrett). In others, they argue that they have the right to enforce their racial prejudice (in the case of self-hating Judge Clarence Thomas or Chief Justice John Roberts, who, like his predecessor William Rehnquist, based his early legal career on preventing blacks from voting). Still others just want to impose their corporate-friendly, anti-employee sensitivity on us (for example in the case of the viciously anti-union judge Samuel Alito). All have their unique ax to sharpen, but the key problem that unites all Conservatives is Steering, and ultimately the Domination from others.
The 1960s Supreme Court that ruled Griswold (and later, Roe) found a right to privacy implicitly in several constitutional amendments, including what we call the Bill of Rights, in the private provisions that govern, for example, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of speech and assembly, and due process. What this ultra-conservative court apparently intends in 2021 Dobbs The case currently under consideration is to reject the very notion that there is an interest in freedom in anything other than the express text of the Constitution. Once it does not establish an inherent constitutional right to abortion for women, it can wash its bloody hands by assuming that it is up to the individual states to decide.
But the Tribunal already knows exactly what states are going to do, for the need to take the fundamental reproductive decisions out of the hands of individual states was the only reason for that roe and Griswold Decisions first.
The embarrassment of having to override one’s own decision to do so is alleviated by the fact that the law has effectively and consciously spun its own case law since the 1970s, often in the criminal law context, but also in the area of ââadministrative law, to restrict powers of the federal government to meet the needs of its corporate supporters. But as Wehle points out, one follows the generally conservative pattern when attacking the roe Ruling in this way the court can now justify further efforts to undermine American society and reshape it to match its distorted view of things should be:
The thing is, the dangers of surrender roe go well beyond abortion, as the legal logic threatening this particular right could easily extend to others and invite states to try new laws governing decisions about who to marry, who to be intimate with, and which contraceptives apply them and how to raise their own children.
Wehle notes that the Court of Justice has provided the same reasoning as in roe to find protected civil liberties that enable people, for example, to marry a different race, to be protected from forced sterilization or to have sex with a person of the same sex. The Court had previously also found that civil liberties are included in people’s choice of whether or not to teach their children in public schools. In short, there are many things that the Constitution does not specifically provide that are implicit in its language.
Since Clarence Thomas happens to be married to a white woman – that is, as he would be personally affected – we can probably rule out the possibility that the court will annul his marriage for mixed race … at least until his retirement. The point here, however, is that the cases the Court found such an interest were all due to arbitrary acts at the state level, and typically those acts, all of which were deemed unconstitutional, were in some sort of prejudice or state Bias ingrained be it against homosexuals, anti-blacks or anti-criminal defendants. (In the Skinner case cited above, the court found that the Oklahoma Penal Sterilization Act required the sterilization of habitual offenders in crimes of “moral rejection.”)
In other words, these questionable laws were spawned from the same inflammatory hatred that is now being fomented by the right against transgender people, for example.
Wehle’s argument is that the constitution horrific implicitly denies such laws, banishing them to the states – and that is exactly what the court intends to do with the repeal roe– Essentially means that any state whose right-wing legislature considers it politically expedient or âpopularâ to pass laws restricting their rights will declare an open season for oppressed populations or minorities.
As Wehle notes:
So, to say that roe is a one-time constitutional flaw that is built on poor foundations while other rights are firmly anchored, is a myth – and a dangerous one. Nothing in the Constitution says anything specifically to protect couples’ ability to have sex, use contraception, get married, choose how to raise their children, refuse physical exams or medical treatment, and, yes, pregnancy cancel. From a legal point of view, if roe falls, it is difficult to see what remains.
As Wehle notes, the right will protest that abortion is a “special case” as it is the right to a “human life” (in this case, an amalgamation of human cells with no viability outside the woman’s body), but like them explains that this is simply an evasive maneuver: “[S]To say this does not mean that critics of other privacy-based rights cannot find their own reasons why these rights must also be weighed against other competing interests. “
One only has to look at the behavior of the Republican Party in its modern form to see how easily a âhuman lifeâ of a particular skin color or sexual orientation can be devalued. In Republican parlance, some lives are simply valued more than others depending on whose prejudices are taken into account. And laws that discriminate, or even effectively repeal, these groups, especially LGBTQ people, seem to be the constant goals.
But some may wonder what about the equal protection clause? Doesn’t that prevent such discrimination? The short answer is that this right-wing Supreme Court has already started dismantling the idea of ââ”equal protection” by stating that such protection can interfere with “freedom of religion”, for example. And although the Court of Justice only a few years ago found same-sex marriages to be protected by due process and the equality clause, the majority that decided that this opinion no longer exists has been replaced by a majority that is actively opposed to it. When the court treats previous precedents as disparagingly and contemptuously as it does now Roe, How long does one expect this judgment to apply?
As if it weren’t serious enough to overthrow the zeal of judgment roe and making all American women second-class citizens has implications that go well beyond whether states can criminalize abortion. Decades of efforts by the Republican Party to transform itself into permanent minority rule suggest that Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar and Lauren Boebert will soon be setting the country’s legislative agenda, constantly promoting legislative attacks on those they consider inferior and undeserved Representation, most obviously People of Color or the entire LGBTQ population. We can only expect the same pattern to be repeated by Republicans who control their own legislatures. The Supreme Court just wired you to do this.
It should not be overlooked that the majority of Americans do not support overruling roe, and they certainly will not support it when the consequences become clearer. But as long as the Supreme Court remains in its current rabid and radical form, and without serious legislative setbacks, we are likely to face changes in our society that go well beyond the issue of abortion law. We’re already at it Black mirror or Twilight zone Territory with delusional, armed right-wing paramilitaries literally chasing our elected officials or threatening them with violence and harassment for just doing their job.
We have a former president acting as a strange kind of malicious, disruptive presence in absence. And we have a population that is so fooled by social media that simply getting people vaccinated against a pandemic has become a “political” issue.
Without serious, radical improvements to our institutions, it is clear that repeal roe Have consequences that permeate and invade other aspects of our lives – as well as the right to make reproductive choices – that many of us take for granted today. For the right, overriding roe is not an end, but a beginning.