Parents' Rights

[Blue Rectangle]

The ruling was utter bunk. How fitting that it was delivered by perhaps the the most activist conservative justice of all time.

I only read the wiki article--I'm not going to read the full decision.  Wiki starts by talking about the "right to privacy", but the key issue seems to be due process.  So I'm confused.  Did the Court claim that the right to privacy derives from due process?

[Blue Rectangle]

The decision, although unanimous, was unsound. The court's position was that the state law deprived parents of the "liberty" of educating their children as they desire, thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment. It is doubtful whether the word "liberty" includes the "right" to educate one's children wherever one pleases, but even if we accept that it does, the court's argument is invalid. The Fourteenth Amendment does not say, no state shall deprive any person of liberty. It provides, no state shall deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Since Oregon passed a law in this particular case, the deprivation of "liberty" was constitutionally permitted.
[/quote]

So Oregon passed a law because the majority of its citizens believed that Catholic schools are bad and therefore Catholics should have to send their children to public schools.  How is this not a blatant violation of substantive due process?

[Blue Rectangle]

How is this not a blatant violation of substantive due process?

There is no such thing as substantive due process.

So then what protection do the liberties of minorities have against Democracy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law did not apply to Catholics alone, but to all children in Oregon. Therefore, no free exercise issue arises.

The KKK didn't support the law because they love public schools.  This law was a very obvious intent to deprive Catholics of personal liberties, which included both free exercise and liberty in general.