"the problem with the J. alito opinion overturning roe is it indulges the same kinda fuzzy reasoning as did roe while pretending to be a textualist interpretation. is a pandora's box scenario as the aforementioned griswold's right to privacy, as well as a whole bunch o' other substantive rights didn't have the weight o' tradition and history to support their recognition as fundamental when SCOTUS created. another J. alito opinion, american legion v. american humanist association (2019), held that giant cross were okie dokie on public land in part if it had managed to endure long enough. same tradition and history which supports giant crosses woulda' no doubt failed with an enormous star o' david or a colossal basalt statue o' baphomet, eh? the current abortion case might as well be a cf cite to the maryland cross case. tradition and history. history and tradition. is too many instances o' Justices getting history horrible wrong btw."
and
hard to believe, but not even technical true. is nothing in the Constitution 'bout "voting rights." voting is mentioned, and so the Court observes rights for voting is necessarily implied. worse, the Constitution does specific observe the individual state legislatures is responsible for elections, which is why jim crow laws which created literacy tests and discriminatory limits on voting were deemed Constitutional by the Court until Congress passed legislation to protect voting rights. however, there is nothing in the Constitution which forces or compels Congress to pass laws to protect implied rights.
converse, there is a specific right to free exercise o' religion, which would be meaningless if it didn't cover jesus, odin and Gozer The Destructor. likewise, the process for admitting states is described even if the names is not pre established. etc.
that said, there is a whole lotta implied rights in the Constitution most o' us take for granted. well of course interracial marriage is a right... isn't it? we mentioned in a linked post how loving is at risk from this Court. right to privacy. miranda rights. right against self incrimination. possible most immediate relevant is the right to die. according to the Court, a person suffering may forgo medical treatment or even take their own life, albeit unassisted. such a right to die as it were is based on much o' the same reasoning as roe. if roe fails, then why would a right to die persist, a right which also has considerable history and tradition which would weigh in favour o' state efforts to criminalize?
also
...
highlight the following:
is no reason for most obsidian posters to recognize, but the real danger o' the recent 2nd amendment case, while unrelated to substantive due process, is that thomas relied on the same so not textualist busted arse "history" approach used by alito to overturn roe. women and minorities (religious, racial, etc.) were marginalized during much o' the history o' this nation and the substantive due process analysis applied by alito and thomas considers history contemporaneous and previous to 1789 (original constitution and bill o' rights) and 1868 (fourteenth amendment.) how many women want to turn back the legal clock to 1868 or 1789? those were the salad days for asian and/or jewish americans? the new conservative majority has abandoned textualism and instead embraced a skewed and self-serving history approach. the Justices has shown time and again their historical scholarship is selective and suspect but even when the do get it right, the history and traditions contemporaneous and previous to relevant Constitutional sections and clauses is gonna almost always burden women and minorities to a unconscionable degree.
the new conservative Court is not only reactionary but it has become unabashed activist. is a whole lotta rights americans believe to be sacrosanct, rights which Alito and thomas has now made abundant clear they is seeing as unconstitutional, and they has managed to convince at least three other Justices to go along with their slash and burn approach to substantive rights on multiple occasions. is good reason to be concerned 'bout the future o' many US liberties and freedoms. will such fears be enough to get democrats to vote? history says no, but recent elections is changing the history a bit. there were record turnouts for primaries in places such as georgia even after the recent passage o' the state's new jim crow voting law. how long will democrats remain invested in outcomes?
HA! Good Fun!