What other rights will be taken away next now that Roe is gone?

Reading a bit of Clarence Thomas last night, I was reminded that Roe was overturned because it had tried to incorporate an abortion right by way of the due process clause, and that is poor reasoning from the legal perspective.

The right to abortion is found in the Ninth Amendment, not the due process clause.

 

I can't agree with your statement, "In the entire history of this country, never has the supreme court recognized a right, and then have it taken away". Any change in law empowers one position over another. I used to have the right to have a run away slave returned to me even if s/he had made it to a "free" state. Then I didn't.
And the court will recognize rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. There is a lot of intentionally vague language left to the court to interpret. The 1st for instance, theoretically would allow for severe punishment of speech the government dislikes. They won't infringe. Go ahead and say what you like. But if you say you prefer chocolate to vanilla or Batman to Superman, you can be hung. Our social history says that punishing a person after the fact WILL infringe on what they say as they'll avoid saying it in the first place, so, after the fact punishment for speech is illegal.

I do think all you reference above can and maybe even will be over-turned. And then, the real work of reasoning with people, winning elections and legit changing laws can begin. To me, over-turning Roe is really about saying to the Left, "stop using the USSC to ram policies down people's throats they never agreed upon".

The real concern going forward for me will be right wing activism. Example: Lawrence v Texas gets over-turned. This returns the issue to the states. But suppose some right wing activist says same sex violates our social history in violation of the 3rd Amendment and NO state may find it unlawful?

That is sort of why activism was always very wrong. It sets up a house of cards that cause radical change without allowing the people the contemplation needed to effect real change, if that is what they want to do. It has always been an attack on the concept of self government in a representative republic.

 

The contracts (which is all marriage is, from a secular/governmental perspective) are identical, so why in the world would we need different words for hetro vs. homo? It's the same sh*t either way.

Additionally, why is it you feel that straight people do (or at least should) "own" the term marriage?

 

Yeah, it's not like any of the supreme court justices have said anything about needing to revisit any of these prior rulings mentioned in the OP.....

 

States can take away some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, but not rights that are strongly implicit. Some rights explicitly apply to the states, particularly the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Technically states can refuse to honor some rights explicit in the constitution. For instance early on it was deemed that the Bill of Rights applied only at the federal level and not the states' level. However, SCOTUS, in a relatively short period through a process that came to be known as incorporation, ruled piecemeal (one at a time) over time that the bill of rights did apply to the states. I think they have so ruled on all rights in the bill of rights though its possible one or two haven't been ruled on yet.

 

I'm not surprised that some in congress and other politicos might bloviate about contraception, so it is not fear mongering. However, nothing will come of it. Even if the court wastes its time overturning Griswald, that will not ban contraception. It will simply allow the states to do so, and IMO virtually none will.

 

Of course one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to make sure the states recognized and affirmed rights and restrictions upon government imposed by the Bill of Rights.

Why is it so few people, including my hero Tucker, understand the Ninth Amendment? It is elegantly simple to understand IMO.

 

I think a number of states will move to outlaw abortion, some, IMO, with over draconian laws (which, in a long shot, still could be revisited by the supreme court). But what makes you thing these would be against the majority will?? From what I can see the majority, including women, blacks, and Hispanics, do not approve of abortion, although that is on a sliding scale relative basis.

 

That is exactly what should have happened the first time around. It should NOT be the states business who is in a spiritual union with who, and it should NOT be the church's business who gets what rights.

These should be completely separate and separate words should be used for each.

 

The early ruling on how the constitution applies to state governments was before the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is when it was determined that the bill of rights applies to state governments as well as the federal government.

 

Claiming the government wants to take away our guns??? They are blatantly open, unabashed and in our face about wanting our guns; no fear mongering necessary.
IMO you have some justification with the other things, but they are mostly insignificant -- a nit. I think there is a good chance that the same sex marriage ruling can get overturned (because of the same reason Roe got overturned -- it is none of the federal government's business or authority) and that will be affected in some states, so your fear might be justified. The sodomy ruling has solid constitutional justification, and I don't think the court will even address it. They might address Griswald and even vacate it, but that would be simply showing off. I don't think one state will change their current laws.

 

There are distinct and large advantages with a state sanctioned marriage ranging from economic, taxes, protection, divorce, child rearing, etc, etc, etc, all of which vanishes if the state gets out of the marriage business.

 

True, although some were incorporated post the 14th.

I agree with the sentiment, but you're not exactly correct. The 14th amendment was written specifically for former slaves and blacks (although it applies to others) and listed explicit rights that the states could not take away, and these are not the same as the rights listed in the bill of rights. Just clarifying, not arguing.

 

Not if all of those same things attach to a different word. I see no good reason why any of that should be attached to a claimed spiritual union between people.

Churches should not have to recognize anybody as being in a spiritual union of they don't want to either. If some bigoted church doesn't want to see gay men as in a spiritual union on the same level as a heterosexual couple, we shouldn't demand they do so.

And no church, mosque or temple should have any say in what legal rights any people have.

 

There's no compelling governmental or societal interest in doing so, so I put that at a 0.001% chance of happening. Not to mention the Court is not a Legislature, so they can't just bring up and rule on any old topic they feel like, the right case has to land on their Bench in the first place before it's even a hypothetical possibility. You suppose someone is going to sue their next-door neighbors for being a same sex married couple? What harm are they causing?

None.

Therefore, the suit would be completely without merit. Not to mention it's covered under the 14th Amendment.

Same goes for Loving, Lawrence, Griswold, Brown v. Board, and any other case that involves the expansion of personal rights the Courts have properly ruled on in the last century.

As for Roe, even RGB thought it was not ruled properly.

 

People are free (in all states AFAIK) to enter into common law marriages not sanctioned by either the state or a church, although recognized by the state. Unrecognized common law marriages are simply co-habitation (shacking up if you will) which anyone can do AFAIK.

 

you won't get an answer...

 

Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. These views are relatively unchanged in the past few years.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...rtion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

I think we form our opinions (in this case, abortion) based upon those with whom we surround ourselves. In my experience - with my circle of friends/family - the thought of outlawing abortion is like going back to the stone ages. Perhaps in your circles, the move is long overdue.

 

Nope. I already blasted a hole through the argument they are coming to take all our guns. There is only one person in congress who’s said she would like all guns taken away. I’ll go a step further…show me any legislation currently being push that takes all guns away. I’ll wait

 

For sake of argument, lets take your numbers as completely accurate.

What is wrong with this issue being thrown back to the states so that the states can reflect the 61-37 split that you report? In some states, the preponderance will favor banning abortion, in others ( and if your numbers are accurate most states) it will leave it as is. People that live in states that ban it can travel to another state to still get what they desire. Each state will legislatively reflect the will of its people via its elected officials. This is how our system is supposed to work.

Why exactly is this such a tragedy?

 

It would happen the same way Roe was overturned. Fanatics creating laws with the specific intent of challenging court precedents.

 

Uncle Clarence is ready to go after everything but Loving vs Virginia.

https://time.com/6191044/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception-abortion/

 

There has been a pretty large anti-abortion lobby since Rowe V Wade. Thanks to the court, Abortion has been a major political issue for half a century, and had millions and millions of people who opposed it and supported groups and politicians who also opposed it. It's never stopped being a political issue for 50 years.

So...where is the equivalent for birth control? Which state wants to outlaw birth control? Which political party wants to outlaw birth control?

 

Your argument is that no one wants to, not that it can't be done. All it takes are fanatics emboldened by the overturning of Roe to try and push more controlling regressive laws to reshape society into whatever twisted fundamentalist version they subscribe to. Probably couldn't happen in most states, but there are a few pretty regressive states in this country where it's hardly impossible.

At this point, it's just speculation for sure. It's only been a 2 days since Friday. We'll see what starts happening months and years down the road, after the state legislatures in regressive states have gotten drunk on the power trip of legislating women's uterus's. I predict that harsher more regressive laws are coming in a few places. I can't predict whether they will succeed in passing them or whether those laws will be successful in overturning SCOTUS precedent. But it's not out of the question at all. Not with Thomas and the other fundamentalists on the court.

 

I don't believe that for a minute. I can easily believe that 61% or so believes that abortion should be legal up to about 5 months or so, and some agree to legal abortion after 5 months with varying degrees of highly restricted specific cause. I don't believe that 1% believe abortion should be legal up to the point of natural delivery.