8 ms·

The future of privacy rights in a post-Roe world

42 points by samizdis 4y ago

sandworm101 4y ago
Oh, your privacy rights are perfectly safe. You just don't know what those rights are going to be from one day to the next. I have great respect for judges, but altering decades-old precedents under the claim that such rights never actually existed boarders on gaslighting.
- 99_00 4y ago
  Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. Disagreement is if right to abortion comes from right to privacy. I don't see how it does. Because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion it falls on those who see it as a constitutional right to show their work. Especially since abortion has historically been illegal especially after the baby's first movement. So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy?
  - john-radio 4y ago
    > So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy? Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. > Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. The recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the right to privacy is not in the constitution.
    - 99_00 4y ago
      >Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. Your argument appears be that precedents should never be overturned. If that's correct, your argument is obviously bad on the face of it. If that's wrong, I wonder what your argument actually is.
  - lakhim 4y ago
    You could read Roe instead of asking?
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    I mean, you can just refer to the Roe v. Wade judgement to understand the Supreme Court's view on why that is the case.
    - charrondev 4y ago
      But Roe v. Wade (and abortion being protected under a right to privacy) was changed
      - matthewmacleod 4y ago
        Right, but the argument for why one would consider it to be protected is clearly spelled out in the original court case – regardless of any subsequent ruling.
    - 99_00 4y ago
      And you can refer to Dobbs to understand the Supreme Court's view on why it isn't the case.
      - matthewmacleod 4y ago
        You asked why somebody would think that the right to privacy is applicable in this situation. There is ample material describing why they might think that, including a Supreme Court judgement. It's not a difficult position to understand, regardless of whether you believe that view or not. The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    (In the region known as the United States of America,) Abortion has actually historically been legal until the baby's first movement, which is four or five months. It's only fairly recently where things like banning abortion before pregnancy is even visible was implemented.
    - throwaway1777 4y ago
      Such a blanket statement is false. Different countries and cultures have “historically” had very different rules around abortions.
      - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
        Okay, let me edit my post to clarify that I'm speaking in the country where this discussion is happening, because it's about the supreme court decision of a specific country, lol.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. That is demonstrably not true. Robert Bork may be dead, but many folks still believe what he said, which was that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a general right to privacy. Thomas specifically argued that the court should also look at overturning the right to contraception, private consensual sex, and gay marriage specifically because the same privacy right underlies those rulings.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      One more thing to add the above comment. The ruling in Loving v Virginia, which is what allows interracial marriages like Thomas' to exist in Virginia in the first place, is also based on substantive due process (which is what underlies the privacy right in all these cases). Quite conveniently, Loving v Virginia was not one of the rulings that Thomas argued needed revisiting.
      - delecti 4y ago
        Loving v Virginia is based both on due process and equal protection. He's not necessarily a hypocrite to be against Loving but not Roe. But he did call out Obergefell, which is also based on equal protection, so he is very much a hypocrite for calling out that but not Loving.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Historically, abortion has been more often legal than illegal. It was made illegal in the period from 1847 to 1880, and stayed that way until 1973 (roe v wade). Of the 246 years since the declaration of independence, abortion has been fully legal for 120 years, illegal in a patchwork of states for 33 years, and illegal fully for 93 years. A good twitter thread with some fun re-framing of the history of abortion: https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/1541164143314714625 https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/154116414331471462...
- kibwen 4y ago
  > I have great respect for judges Conversely, I have about as much respect for these judges as I'd have for a bench comprised solely of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian (which is, to be fair, more respect than for a bench that included Roger B. Taney).
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Honestly, I would be less upset at a Kim Kardashian appointment than most. She's a billionaire, so I'd have a hard time supporting it, but she's going to be as qualified as Amy Coney Barrett in just a few more years.
- porknaut 4y ago
  Roe vs Wade upended precedent before it, so precedent alone is a bad argument. The majority ruling specifically rebutted what it thought were nonsensical arguments in the Roe decision for tying the right to privacy to some inherent right in the constitution. Neither right should be viewed as constitutional and even if the right to privacy were, tying abortion to it is a fantastical leap of logic.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    Yes, Roe did create a new right. But in creating that right it didn't take anything from anyone else, at least any living person. It took away the government's right to interfere with one aspect of an individuals life. This new ruling strips an existing right from the individual and returns it to the government. Only law students would see symmetry such a thing. People are allowed to be mad that today they are less in control of their lives than they were yesterday. They are allowed to be mad at government finding yet method to regulate their lives. (I'm also a little shocked that the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad about this. All those rights they think they still have are also now on the table.)
    - commandlinefan 4y ago
      > the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad We anti-big-government crowd types are hopeful that the right to privacy that was invented by the supreme court in 1973 and revoked by the supreme court in 2022 will be added via the correct, non-reversible legislative process it ought to have been back then.
      - fzeroracer 4y ago
        So you're expecting the government to solve a problem created by the government? That seems rather unwise, especially since in the interim you are losing rights as time goes on. Especially when people are cheering on the side that's removing said rights because people would ban abortion, same-sex marriage etc no matter the cost.
- georgia_peach 4y ago
  If we had a right to privacy under the Constitution, did I imagine employers prying into a person's vaccination status, without repercussions? I know, I know, "private company" and all that, but we already have a broad range of illegal questions for private & public employers--like age, genetic information, birthplace, country of origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, race, color, ethnicity, religion. Seems like past medical procedures would also fit nicely in that list. It may be worthwhile to amend the Constitution with an explicit right to privacy. In hindsight, conjuring one through judicial activism was not the way to go about it.
- motohagiography 4y ago
  The best solution may be be to make personal health information (PHI) broadly inadmissable in any non-medical evaluation, decision, assessment, proceeding, or investigation, and then establish specific test criteria for unlocking it for admission. In Canada, our health system cards and numbers are officially not recognized as a form of ID for related reasons. Regarding the bans in those states, do they ban providing the service within the state, or does it ban having the procedure anywhere at all? The privacy impact is very different depending on that rule. The work I've done with health information and privacy and consent directives management has always been a kind of second-best solution. We (Canada) have privacy laws to protect PHI and to require consent for collection, use, and disclosure of your PHI, but agencies regularly run roughshod over it, there is almost zero prosecution or enforcement, and both the research and public health cultures openly express contempt for individual privacy. Even when it comes to reproductive health information, many academic researchers tend to act as though they are entitled to it. The vaccine passports were an example of that culture's approach to bodily integrity and use of personal health information, and while abortion is a different issue and should be treated by itself, they are under the same privacy concept. I wouldn't expect them to treat abortion and reproductive information as any more sacred. How long do you think it's going to take before your fitness tracker makes reports to your insurance and credit company that impact your premiums and interest rates? Banks are using "alternative data" sources for credit decisions already today. The abortion issue may be a forcing function for privacy questions, and I could see a lot of interests rushing into the policy vacuum this leaves.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > do they ban providing the service within the state, or does it ban having the procedure anywhere at all? AFAIK, this has not been tested yet. Although most people seem to be under the impression that states only have jurisdiction within their own borders, not generally over anyone who calls that land their home. I'm sure it will find its way to the supreme court eventually. > How long do you think it's going to take before your fitness tracker makes reports to your insurance and credit company that impact your premiums and interest rates? This already happens, though it is voluntary. Both with fitness trackers, and in the case of car insurance with OBD2 trackers that phone home with your driving habits. > Banks are using "alternative data" sources for credit decisions already today Heck, not just banks. E.g. Best Buy uses alternative data sources to decide whether or not you are allowed to return an item that you've purchased. At some point I hope we at least pass a law that says something to the effect of "all data that can be reasonably tied to an individual is required to be available for review and correction, and all businesses engaged in the collection or use of such data shall be publicly registered as such." Or we could just make the data collection (or at least sharing) illegal outright. That'd be nice.
- pure_simplicity 4y ago
  Look up Nate the Lawyer on youtube for a non-partisan breakdown: https://youtu.be/rPsIaYmh-bo https://youtu.be/rPsIaYmh-bo
karaterobot 4y ago
I know the sky is falling, but this seems really speculative to me. Maybe so speculative that it misleads the reader.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  It's hardly speculation. Go read Clarence Thomas' opinion. He did not mince words.
  - jka 4y ago
    Relevant quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 (a few days ago) 'Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" - referencing three landmark decisions of the past on the right to contraception, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage respectively.'
  - Spivak 4y ago
    It's both funny and sad to see Thomas basically say he wants to gut pretty much all decisions based on the right to privacy and then explicitly carve himself an exception for the interracial marriage decision because vague "well this one has historical precedent" (as if people weren't gay, or having butt sex before 1776). It really shows that he decided he wanted to overturn Roe, worked backwards and then realized this decision might affect him.
    - wbsss4412 4y ago
      Loving v Virginia didn’t cite a right to privacy in its decision. It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.
      - beej71 4y ago
        > It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. How can one then go after same-sex marriage?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
theknocker 4y ago
admissionsguy 4y ago
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  That's optimistic. Conservatives have disproportionate influence in government compared to the size of their actual voter base, but that only goes so far.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  You would rather inflict damage on your political opponents than fix the country? You should be ashamed.
- Fauntleroy 4y ago
  This kind of emotional nonsense is what's dragging this country into the landfill
cryptonector 4y ago
Serious question: did the court ever refer to the same privacy right in non-abortion cases?
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Yes, specifically Thomas' concurrence argues that the privacy is the same right that underlies Griswold (right to contraception), Lawrence (private consensual sex), and Obergefell (same sex marriage), and so Thomas thinks those should be overturned as well.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    Interesting that these are all 'liberal' decisions. Do conservatives not desire privacy, or is it just that we haven't had a conservative right that needed a way to be defended. I guess a lot of things like freedom of religion and gun rights are enumerated in the constitution. In general not having a right to privacy doesn't seem reasonable in a free world. The recent scandal about California leaking gun owners seems like it could lead to a conversation about the right to privacy for gun owners. The constitution mentions a right to bear arms, it doesn't say we have to keep that gun ownership secret. Seems like this might be particularly true for the anti-government militia crowd.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      IANAL. Privacy qua Griswold (and subsequently Roe) is a limited application of privacy as is commonly understood. A full right to privacy in a classically liberal sense is a right to keep something from the knowledge or access of any or all others by means of (but not limited to) omission or oath. If a right to privacy in this sense were to be applied to the CCW scandal, one could argue that California (or any state) should never have required disclosure of gun ownership in the first place or (should such information have been disclosed by the owner voluntarily) that California had violated a promise to keep such information secret unless otherwise noted.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
riskable 4y ago
- powerslacker 4y ago
  Your hysteria about Republicans isn't helping your case one bit. A full facist takeover? Most Republicans are barely competent. They couldn't takeover an unarmed city state if they tried.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    They managed to take over the Supreme Court just fine. They don't need to be extraordinarily competent. Just more competent than the Democrats.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    They did try. It was barely a year and a half ago, not sure how you could forget already. And they're going to try again in 2024.
    - vcgdfgfgfdg 4y ago
  - pempem 4y ago
    Or the capitol despite trying? While I agree with you, I would say there are definitely indications that fringe elements, which are being embraced and becoming leadership in the mainstream, enjoy violent terror as a tool.
  - alangibson 4y ago
    > Most Republicans are barely competent Clearly true, but the opposition parties are even more incompetent. Also, they are cohesive and motivated, and that's enough.
  - tzs 4y ago
    > Most Republicans are barely competent. They couldn't takeover an unarmed city state if they tried. It doesn't take most. It only takes a few if they are well placed. Read the article he linked to and in particular think about point #7 there.
mario_kart_snes 4y ago
> What to watch: Much of daily life happens online, and if the Supreme Court continues down this path, that internet activity could become fodder for criminal investigations. Huh? It certainly already was before this reversal.
mario_kart_snes 4y ago
> The intrigue: The Dobbs decision may prompt tech companies to minimize the data they collect. It could also recharge Congress' effort to pass a national online privacy law. Certainly that would be a good outcome from the Dobbs decision!
georgia_peach 4y ago
If I may paint with a broad brush for a moment, it is cute watching the coasties--who derive a great percentage of their regional GDP from an all-out assault on the privacy of damn near everyone in the civilized world (adtech, analytics, finance [credit scores / front-running trades], e-commerce, "data science" [analyzing the shit out of all those privacy violations], AI [don't get me started])--go into meltdown over the loss of a "right to privacy" that was imagined into the Constitution in the first place. I don't have strong opinions about abortion or a Constitutional right to privacy (real or imagined). I just suffocate on the hypocrisy of these people.

42 points by samizdis 4y ago

Oh, your privacy rights are perfectly safe. You just don't know what those rights are going to be from one day to the next. I have great respect for judges, but altering decades-old precedents under the claim that such rights never actually existed boarders on gaslighting.

99_00 4y ago
Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. Disagreement is if right to abortion comes from right to privacy. I don't see how it does. Because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion it falls on those who see it as a constitutional right to show their work. Especially since abortion has historically been illegal especially after the baby's first movement. So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy?
- john-radio 4y ago
  > So I wonder, why do you think the right to abortion stems from the right of privacy? Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. > Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. The recent Supreme Court ruling asserts that the right to privacy is not in the constitution.
  - 99_00 4y ago
    >Because that is what the ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was, so it's been precedent in the United States for almost 50 years that the right to an abortion explicitly results from the right to bodily privacy. Your argument appears be that precedents should never be overturned. If that's correct, your argument is obviously bad on the face of it. If that's wrong, I wonder what your argument actually is.
- lakhim 4y ago
  You could read Roe instead of asking?
- matthewmacleod 4y ago
  I mean, you can just refer to the Roe v. Wade judgement to understand the Supreme Court's view on why that is the case.
  - charrondev 4y ago
    But Roe v. Wade (and abortion being protected under a right to privacy) was changed
    - matthewmacleod 4y ago
      Right, but the argument for why one would consider it to be protected is clearly spelled out in the original court case – regardless of any subsequent ruling.
  - 99_00 4y ago
    And you can refer to Dobbs to understand the Supreme Court's view on why it isn't the case.
    - matthewmacleod 4y ago
      You asked why somebody would think that the right to privacy is applicable in this situation. There is ample material describing why they might think that, including a Supreme Court judgement. It's not a difficult position to understand, regardless of whether you believe that view or not. The existence of other material, including a later judgement, supporting the view that this isn't the case does not invalidate other views.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  (In the region known as the United States of America,) Abortion has actually historically been legal until the baby's first movement, which is four or five months. It's only fairly recently where things like banning abortion before pregnancy is even visible was implemented.
  - throwaway1777 4y ago
    Such a blanket statement is false. Different countries and cultures have “historically” had very different rules around abortions.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      Okay, let me edit my post to clarify that I'm speaking in the country where this discussion is happening, because it's about the supreme court decision of a specific country, lol.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > Everyone agrees that the right to privacy is in the constitution. That is demonstrably not true. Robert Bork may be dead, but many folks still believe what he said, which was that the Constitution does NOT guarantee a general right to privacy. Thomas specifically argued that the court should also look at overturning the right to contraception, private consensual sex, and gay marriage specifically because the same privacy right underlies those rulings.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    One more thing to add the above comment. The ruling in Loving v Virginia, which is what allows interracial marriages like Thomas' to exist in Virginia in the first place, is also based on substantive due process (which is what underlies the privacy right in all these cases). Quite conveniently, Loving v Virginia was not one of the rulings that Thomas argued needed revisiting.
    - delecti 4y ago
      Loving v Virginia is based both on due process and equal protection. He's not necessarily a hypocrite to be against Loving but not Roe. But he did call out Obergefell, which is also based on equal protection, so he is very much a hypocrite for calling out that but not Loving.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Historically, abortion has been more often legal than illegal. It was made illegal in the period from 1847 to 1880, and stayed that way until 1973 (roe v wade). Of the 246 years since the declaration of independence, abortion has been fully legal for 120 years, illegal in a patchwork of states for 33 years, and illegal fully for 93 years. A good twitter thread with some fun re-framing of the history of abortion: https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/1541164143314714625 https://twitter.com/jskilesskinner/status/154116414331471462...
kibwen 4y ago
> I have great respect for judges Conversely, I have about as much respect for these judges as I'd have for a bench comprised solely of Kanye West and Kim Kardashian (which is, to be fair, more respect than for a bench that included Roger B. Taney).
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Honestly, I would be less upset at a Kim Kardashian appointment than most. She's a billionaire, so I'd have a hard time supporting it, but she's going to be as qualified as Amy Coney Barrett in just a few more years.
porknaut 4y ago
Roe vs Wade upended precedent before it, so precedent alone is a bad argument. The majority ruling specifically rebutted what it thought were nonsensical arguments in the Roe decision for tying the right to privacy to some inherent right in the constitution. Neither right should be viewed as constitutional and even if the right to privacy were, tying abortion to it is a fantastical leap of logic.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Yes, Roe did create a new right. But in creating that right it didn't take anything from anyone else, at least any living person. It took away the government's right to interfere with one aspect of an individuals life. This new ruling strips an existing right from the individual and returns it to the government. Only law students would see symmetry such a thing. People are allowed to be mad that today they are less in control of their lives than they were yesterday. They are allowed to be mad at government finding yet method to regulate their lives. (I'm also a little shocked that the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad about this. All those rights they think they still have are also now on the table.)
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    > the anti-big-government crowd isn't also screaming mad We anti-big-government crowd types are hopeful that the right to privacy that was invented by the supreme court in 1973 and revoked by the supreme court in 2022 will be added via the correct, non-reversible legislative process it ought to have been back then.
    - fzeroracer 4y ago
      So you're expecting the government to solve a problem created by the government? That seems rather unwise, especially since in the interim you are losing rights as time goes on. Especially when people are cheering on the side that's removing said rights because people would ban abortion, same-sex marriage etc no matter the cost.
georgia_peach 4y ago
If we had a right to privacy under the Constitution, did I imagine employers prying into a person's vaccination status, without repercussions? I know, I know, "private company" and all that, but we already have a broad range of illegal questions for private & public employers--like age, genetic information, birthplace, country of origin, disability, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, race, color, ethnicity, religion. Seems like past medical procedures would also fit nicely in that list. It may be worthwhile to amend the Constitution with an explicit right to privacy. In hindsight, conjuring one through judicial activism was not the way to go about it.
motohagiography 4y ago
The best solution may be be to make personal health information (PHI) broadly inadmissable in any non-medical evaluation, decision, assessment, proceeding, or investigation, and then establish specific test criteria for unlocking it for admission. In Canada, our health system cards and numbers are officially not recognized as a form of ID for related reasons. Regarding the bans in those states, do they ban providing the service within the state, or does it ban having the procedure anywhere at all? The privacy impact is very different depending on that rule. The work I've done with health information and privacy and consent directives management has always been a kind of second-best solution. We (Canada) have privacy laws to protect PHI and to require consent for collection, use, and disclosure of your PHI, but agencies regularly run roughshod over it, there is almost zero prosecution or enforcement, and both the research and public health cultures openly express contempt for individual privacy. Even when it comes to reproductive health information, many academic researchers tend to act as though they are entitled to it. The vaccine passports were an example of that culture's approach to bodily integrity and use of personal health information, and while abortion is a different issue and should be treated by itself, they are under the same privacy concept. I wouldn't expect them to treat abortion and reproductive information as any more sacred. How long do you think it's going to take before your fitness tracker makes reports to your insurance and credit company that impact your premiums and interest rates? Banks are using "alternative data" sources for credit decisions already today. The abortion issue may be a forcing function for privacy questions, and I could see a lot of interests rushing into the policy vacuum this leaves.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > do they ban providing the service within the state, or does it ban having the procedure anywhere at all? AFAIK, this has not been tested yet. Although most people seem to be under the impression that states only have jurisdiction within their own borders, not generally over anyone who calls that land their home. I'm sure it will find its way to the supreme court eventually. > How long do you think it's going to take before your fitness tracker makes reports to your insurance and credit company that impact your premiums and interest rates? This already happens, though it is voluntary. Both with fitness trackers, and in the case of car insurance with OBD2 trackers that phone home with your driving habits. > Banks are using "alternative data" sources for credit decisions already today Heck, not just banks. E.g. Best Buy uses alternative data sources to decide whether or not you are allowed to return an item that you've purchased. At some point I hope we at least pass a law that says something to the effect of "all data that can be reasonably tied to an individual is required to be available for review and correction, and all businesses engaged in the collection or use of such data shall be publicly registered as such." Or we could just make the data collection (or at least sharing) illegal outright. That'd be nice.
pure_simplicity 4y ago
Look up Nate the Lawyer on youtube for a non-partisan breakdown: https://youtu.be/rPsIaYmh-bo https://youtu.be/rPsIaYmh-bo

karaterobot 4y ago

I know the sky is falling, but this seems really speculative to me. Maybe so speculative that it misleads the reader.

rootusrootus 4y ago
It's hardly speculation. Go read Clarence Thomas' opinion. He did not mince words.
- jka 4y ago
  Relevant quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61928898 (a few days ago) 'Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion, wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell" - referencing three landmark decisions of the past on the right to contraception, the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, and the legalisation of same-sex marriage respectively.'
- Spivak 4y ago
  It's both funny and sad to see Thomas basically say he wants to gut pretty much all decisions based on the right to privacy and then explicitly carve himself an exception for the interracial marriage decision because vague "well this one has historical precedent" (as if people weren't gay, or having butt sex before 1776). It really shows that he decided he wanted to overturn Roe, worked backwards and then realized this decision might affect him.
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    Loving v Virginia didn’t cite a right to privacy in its decision. It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. Thomas is an extremist but leaving out loving isn’t a right to privacy carve out.
    - beej71 4y ago
      > It was based on equal protection and a “right to marry”. How can one then go after same-sex marriage?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

theknocker 4y ago

admissionsguy 4y ago

rootusrootus 4y ago
That's optimistic. Conservatives have disproportionate influence in government compared to the size of their actual voter base, but that only goes so far.
dsr_ 4y ago
You would rather inflict damage on your political opponents than fix the country? You should be ashamed.
Fauntleroy 4y ago
This kind of emotional nonsense is what's dragging this country into the landfill

cryptonector 4y ago

Serious question: did the court ever refer to the same privacy right in non-abortion cases?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Yes, specifically Thomas' concurrence argues that the privacy is the same right that underlies Griswold (right to contraception), Lawrence (private consensual sex), and Obergefell (same sex marriage), and so Thomas thinks those should be overturned as well.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Interesting that these are all 'liberal' decisions. Do conservatives not desire privacy, or is it just that we haven't had a conservative right that needed a way to be defended. I guess a lot of things like freedom of religion and gun rights are enumerated in the constitution. In general not having a right to privacy doesn't seem reasonable in a free world. The recent scandal about California leaking gun owners seems like it could lead to a conversation about the right to privacy for gun owners. The constitution mentions a right to bear arms, it doesn't say we have to keep that gun ownership secret. Seems like this might be particularly true for the anti-government militia crowd.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    IANAL. Privacy qua Griswold (and subsequently Roe) is a limited application of privacy as is commonly understood. A full right to privacy in a classically liberal sense is a right to keep something from the knowledge or access of any or all others by means of (but not limited to) omission or oath. If a right to privacy in this sense were to be applied to the CCW scandal, one could argue that California (or any state) should never have required disclosure of gun ownership in the first place or (should such information have been disclosed by the owner voluntarily) that California had violated a promise to keep such information secret unless otherwise noted.
- cryptonector 4y ago

riskable 4y ago

powerslacker 4y ago
Your hysteria about Republicans isn't helping your case one bit. A full facist takeover? Most Republicans are barely competent. They couldn't takeover an unarmed city state if they tried.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  They managed to take over the Supreme Court just fine. They don't need to be extraordinarily competent. Just more competent than the Democrats.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  They did try. It was barely a year and a half ago, not sure how you could forget already. And they're going to try again in 2024.
  - vcgdfgfgfdg 4y ago
- pempem 4y ago
  Or the capitol despite trying? While I agree with you, I would say there are definitely indications that fringe elements, which are being embraced and becoming leadership in the mainstream, enjoy violent terror as a tool.
- alangibson 4y ago
  > Most Republicans are barely competent Clearly true, but the opposition parties are even more incompetent. Also, they are cohesive and motivated, and that's enough.
- tzs 4y ago
  > Most Republicans are barely competent. They couldn't takeover an unarmed city state if they tried. It doesn't take most. It only takes a few if they are well placed. Read the article he linked to and in particular think about point #7 there.

mario_kart_snes 4y ago

> What to watch: Much of daily life happens online, and if the Supreme Court continues down this path, that internet activity could become fodder for criminal investigations. Huh? It certainly already was before this reversal.

mario_kart_snes 4y ago

> The intrigue: The Dobbs decision may prompt tech companies to minimize the data they collect. It could also recharge Congress' effort to pass a national online privacy law. Certainly that would be a good outcome from the Dobbs decision!

georgia_peach 4y ago

If I may paint with a broad brush for a moment, it is cute watching the coasties--who derive a great percentage of their regional GDP from an all-out assault on the privacy of damn near everyone in the civilized world (adtech, analytics, finance [credit scores / front-running trades], e-commerce, "data science" [analyzing the shit out of all those privacy violations], AI [don't get me started])--go into meltdown over the loss of a "right to privacy" that was imagined into the Constitution in the first place. I don't have strong opinions about abortion or a Constitutional right to privacy (real or imagined). I just suffocate on the hypocrisy of these people.