Where does the current Supreme Court majority stand on whether the US Constitution protects individual human liberty against encroachment by the State?
Where does the current Supreme Court majority stand on whether the US Constitution protects individual human liberty against encroachment by the State?
May 19, 2022·edited May 19, 2022Liked by Katherine Watt
Sometimes I gotta laugh, because in the end the whole thing about making up laws and rules (for 'others', truth be told) are in trying to adequately describe and implement their limitations. Few are universal*. In comparison with a theoretically lawless and ruleless society, (if there ever was or is one? hard to prove), I do have to weigh the benefits of codifying the rules and laws at all when they are so easily misapplied.
*Gravity is the only law I have personally found to be universal. Human decency seems common as well (50%? in my life) if we are one on one. Beyond that, complications.
One analogy in support of the above theory is that when they remove stop signs from 4 way stop intersections there are fewer accidents. Or so I heard.
"Freedom from unwanted medical attention is unquestionably among those principles so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
Wow, this is more true now than ever due to so many of the "medical procedures" being clearly against the patient's quality of life and often at vey minimal lengthening of lifespan if at all, particularly when statistically measured within elderly populations.
I've read that we spend the vast majority of our health care dollars for any given individual in the last 6 months of the individual's life.
It's not a use of resources. It's a wealth transfer. Same as estate taxes.
If everyone could retain their wealth, who would work for the elite? Of course that is changing with AI and robots... and thus the eugenics and genocide.
Planning to dive into those topics as I keep going, including how ‘privacy’ became the basis for Roe, and was then abandoned by Casey, and even more abandoned in the draft Dobbs opinion. It’s extremely convoluted.
Big picture, I agree: it matters a lot what the principles are that the justices base their rulings on, and to whatever extent the good guys rebuild new judicial systems from the ground up to replace the broken ones that Covid has exposed — as Reiner Fuellmich & his team advocate — it will be important to establish better moral foundations than what the current federal judiciary is working with.
The video "Powerful information revealed about COVID Dr. Reiner Fuellmich & Dr. David Martin" is an absolute must see, after listening to the evidence exposed, there is no way anyone could not be convinced is of sound mind.
Reading the Alito Dobbs opinion and taking notes on it today.
The short answer about where privacy as the basis for Roe came from, is Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case about the right of married couples to have access to information about contraceptive devices and drugs, and the right to buy and use them within the privacy of their marriages.
After Griswold, a 3rd-year law student in South Carolina, Roy Lucas, wrote a 1968 paper advocating that the Griswold privacy right could be extended to cover abortions, and Lucas then went on to work on several abortion-rights legal cases pushing the principle into courts, culminating Roe in 1973.
When the Casey court looked at Roe again in 1992, they abandoned the ‘privacy’ argument and instead put the whole weight of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. Haven’t yet got to the bottom of that argument.
Sometimes I gotta laugh, because in the end the whole thing about making up laws and rules (for 'others', truth be told) are in trying to adequately describe and implement their limitations. Few are universal*. In comparison with a theoretically lawless and ruleless society, (if there ever was or is one? hard to prove), I do have to weigh the benefits of codifying the rules and laws at all when they are so easily misapplied.
*Gravity is the only law I have personally found to be universal. Human decency seems common as well (50%? in my life) if we are one on one. Beyond that, complications.
One analogy in support of the above theory is that when they remove stop signs from 4 way stop intersections there are fewer accidents. Or so I heard.
"Freedom from unwanted medical attention is unquestionably among those principles so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
Wow, this is more true now than ever due to so many of the "medical procedures" being clearly against the patient's quality of life and often at vey minimal lengthening of lifespan if at all, particularly when statistically measured within elderly populations.
I've read that we spend the vast majority of our health care dollars for any given individual in the last 6 months of the individual's life.
This seems a very inefficient use of resources.
It's not a use of resources. It's a wealth transfer. Same as estate taxes.
If everyone could retain their wealth, who would work for the elite? Of course that is changing with AI and robots... and thus the eugenics and genocide.
Exactly, they will only need us for the requisite number of male n female virgins.
Handmaid's Tale
Closer than you think, when fertility becomes a serious issue.
Planning to dive into those topics as I keep going, including how ‘privacy’ became the basis for Roe, and was then abandoned by Casey, and even more abandoned in the draft Dobbs opinion. It’s extremely convoluted.
Big picture, I agree: it matters a lot what the principles are that the justices base their rulings on, and to whatever extent the good guys rebuild new judicial systems from the ground up to replace the broken ones that Covid has exposed — as Reiner Fuellmich & his team advocate — it will be important to establish better moral foundations than what the current federal judiciary is working with.
The video "Powerful information revealed about COVID Dr. Reiner Fuellmich & Dr. David Martin" is an absolute must see, after listening to the evidence exposed, there is no way anyone could not be convinced is of sound mind.
Where can I find this video?
Please...
https://www.facebook.com/randy.hillier/videos/powerful-information-revealed-about-covid-ft-dr-reiner-fuellmich-dr-david-martin/530142078244383/
A must watch!
Reading the Alito Dobbs opinion and taking notes on it today.
The short answer about where privacy as the basis for Roe came from, is Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case about the right of married couples to have access to information about contraceptive devices and drugs, and the right to buy and use them within the privacy of their marriages.
After Griswold, a 3rd-year law student in South Carolina, Roy Lucas, wrote a 1968 paper advocating that the Griswold privacy right could be extended to cover abortions, and Lucas then went on to work on several abortion-rights legal cases pushing the principle into courts, culminating Roe in 1973.
When the Casey court looked at Roe again in 1992, they abandoned the ‘privacy’ argument and instead put the whole weight of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. Haven’t yet got to the bottom of that argument.