SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[MarkD]

Okay, folks. Here's a fun game. How many of these legal arguments do you agree with for supporting Roe v. Wade?

I saw a post on Facebook by a guy named Byron DeLear. I recognize the name because six years ago he ran for a state rep seat in the St. Louis area and lost. (He was the only Democrat nominee in the last five election cycles who lost a race for House District 70.) His FB post started:

The radical Supreme Court is taking away long-established rights, and what is next? Voting rights? Learn about the folks taking on the  court to protect our rights by watching this important film featuring Debo Adegbile, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In February, Debo spoke at the St. Louis City NAACP Mini-Civil Rights Conference I was honored to help organize. Mr. Adegbile's presentation is a must-see, emotional tour-de-force through the history of American Civil Rights and he is currently working on the Harvard Admissions case to be heard by SCOTUS in October, 2022. As even more of us know now, cases before the Supreme Court is where the rubber meets the road -- we are excited to share this talk with you and look forward to hearing your thoughts! --Byron

I posted the following:

What the Supreme Court giveth, it can taketh away. The "right to privacy" (as described in Griswold v. Conn. and Roe v. Wade) did not come from the Constitution, it came from the imaginations of Supreme Court Justices. If decisions like those were not valid interpretations of the Constitution, then it is completely appropriate to overturn them.

Then a woman by the name of Lisa responded to me with this:

omg 1st amendment freedom to choose religious belief and the right to keep it private
3rd amendment the privacy of your home.
4th amendment protects right of against unreasonable search and seizures
5th amendment the right against self incriminating justifies protection of private info.
9th amendment this justifies a broad reading of the bill of rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for the first 8 amendments.
THIS IS THE ONE HERE PAY ATTENTION
14th amendment. prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided in the first 13 amendments. So mark nope it's not the imagination of anyone.

I was surprised she didn't throw in an 8th Amendment argument about cruel and unusual punishment.

The only one of those six "constitutional" arguments in support of abortion rights that I can relate to is the 9A one. I can relate to someone trying that as an argument, because over 30 years ago, when I didn't know any better, I would rely on 9A in support of my own legal argument for the unconstitutionality of a law I didn't like. But I changed my mind about it when I learned, about 30 years ago, what the 9th was intended to mean.

How about the rest of you? Do you like and agree with all six of her constitutional arguments, even the 3A (lol)?

[MarkD]

https://twitter.com/ribunchreports/status/1592581823837573120

Judge McBurney was appointed by former Gov. Nathan Deal (R).  He's also the judge overseeing the Fulton County special grand jury investigating interference in the 2020 election.

So which constitution does the Georgia abortion law violate: the US Constitution or the GA state constitution?

[MarkD]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

[MarkD]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

So what in the state constitution of South Carolina guarantees a right to privacy? Did the SCSC do as good a job of interpreting the state constitution and precedent as the SCOTUS did in Roe v. Wade?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and unreasonable invasions of privacy shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the person or thing to be seized, and the information to be obtained.

- the SC Constitution's Declaration of Rights section

The direct application to abortion could be questionable, but this is nothing like the argument for substantive due process penumbras in the federal constitution.  There's an explicit written right to privacy in the SC constitution.  FWIW 10+ states have this.

Thank you for this information, but I disagree with whether or not this is anything like substantive due process. This is exactly like it; judges giving a constitutional provision that was intended to only address procedural fairness a meaning that also embraces substantive appropriateness ("reasonableness"). Obviously the phrase "unreasonable invasions of privacy" is an addition to the text of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. I have already seen too many people misinterpreting the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution -- Justice Douglas when he wrote Griswold, Justice Blackmun when he wrote Roe, and Atlas user Vosem, who has treated the Fourth Amendment the same way that Douglas and Blackmun did.
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=527150.msg8834819#msg8834819
If we were to accept that the South Carolina Supreme Court did its job correctly when it has interpreted this "unreasonable invasions of privacy" clause in the South Carolina Declaration of Rights, the people of that state wanted for this clause to be a comprehensive source of judicial review for determination whether any and all legislation that the state legislature ever passed is "reasonable" or not. I would like to see whether the state Supreme Court ever produced historical evidence that THAT is what the people of the state wanted. Otherwise this ruling is obviously a display of judicial activism.