The Birth of the Right of Privacy in the United States
Much of what I will present to you will be cut and paste . . Because when I quote the likes Louis Brandeis, William O. Douglas , and Stephen Breyer I would be foolish of me to try to reinvent the wheel.
Please further that this was written prior to the retirement of Justice Stephen a
and the appointment of Justice Kantaji Brown Jackson. fu
If you consider that every Supreme Court case is part of a game of Dominoes, you still may be far from the magnitude of problems that the myopic right court has created.
The holding In Griswold v Connecticut in which Justice Douglas found in the " penobras " the 14 th Amendment to the constitution created "The right of privacy. "
Nowhere in the constitution is the word "Privacy" ever mentioned. The dominoes that the court set up that we relied upon in the equal protection and civil rights in such monumental decisions such as Loving v. Virginia, Stanley vs . Georgia, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Moore vs the City of Cleveland. Cruzan v Missouri , Department of Health, Lawrence v Texas . Obergefell v Hodges.,
Dominoes also tend to fall down . As they did slighty in Kelley v. Johnson in 1976 and in Planned Parenthood vs Casey in 1992 .
That slight slip in Casey gave the right wing their ammunition needed to start the reversal of Roe and could eventually result in collateral damage that will weaken our fundamental rights.
Over 150 National Constitutions mention the right to privacy . But the United States is not one of these countries.
The first mention of the “The Right to Privacy " in the United States appeared in article in the December 15, 1890 issue of the Harvard Law Review , written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, entitled "The Right to Privacy."
Warren and Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone” and focused on protecting individuals. This approach was a response to recent technological developments of the time, such as photography and sensationalist journalism, also known as "yellow journalism."
Few people ever imagined or anticipated the world that we now live in.
In 1789 when James Madison wrote most of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, do you think that he anticipated that citizen would be able to avail themselves of bazookas?
Do you think that in 1868 when the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted that the Legislatures that within then next hundred years, we would be able to travel across the ccountry in a few hours?de web that would result in the loss of privacy.
Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent recognized the damaged caused by the disrespect for the doctrine of Stare desises.
In Griswold v Connecticut in which Justice Douglas found in the " penonumbras of the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade,s an example of the importance of upholding precedent, especially under pressure from the Court's present conservative majority.
At the time that this Hyatt came down it was split court . with Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would likely vote to reverse and Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan would vote to uphold . The wildcard was CJ Roberts. Nobody was ever sure witch way he would vote, Because unlke Thomas ,Alito , Gorsuch and Kavanaugh , Roberts had a respect for thhe traditions of the court.
When Roberts voted to reverse Hall v Nevada it gave the right the confidence to enact Draconian abortion laws thoughout the land. Roe slightly weakened by Casey was still the law. So the lower would invariable rule against the States . THe States al anticipated this , in fact wanted to lose in the lower courts, so that they c ould appeal the decisions.
They needed a Supreme Court revearsal . The death Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Mitch McConnell being the Senate majority at time guaranteed the Right -wing victory.
They no longer need Hyatt , but I believe that this is not the last you will hear about Hyatt. With incredible speed they found a rightwing Justice who believes that she has double dated with God.
With little orc no vetting they her past an inept group of Democratic Senators .
The addition of Amy Comey Barett t o the Court guaranteed that regardless of Robert's Vote, Roe and Casey were dead.
The right also are applauding the possible collateral damage that this will do. It could ultimately result in states making it illegal to buy and use contraceptive devises (Griswold v Connecticut- Court ruled (7-2) that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restrictions and and 4. 1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird Extended the decision in Griswold to also cover unmarried people. (6-1 with 2 justices not participating ).
States now have avenue where the possibly outlaw interracial marriage (1967 Loving v. Virginia Court rules that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment (9-0))
States could now try to take away all privacy in your own home to watch on your television and read whatever you wish ( 1969 Stanley v Georgia the First Amendment, as applied to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. Supreme Court of Georgia reverse (9-0))
They could disallow family converstaion about health care proxies to be evidence that could determine who and how a person who has made clear his or her preferences to be honored by the medical community as evidence when they can no longer speak for themselves. ( 1990 Cruzan. v Missouri open the door to allow conversation among family, when the party in question was competent, to be used as evidence in determination of his or her after they can no longer speak for themselves).
States may be able to criminalize certain sexual practices between consenting adults illegal. (2003 Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy.)
This could also result in the reversal of the decision that mandated every state to recognize same sex marriages
(Obergfell v Hodges Bans on homosexual marriages are unconstitutional. Through both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America requires States both to license marriages between two people of the same sex as well as to recognize marriages between two people of the same sex as legitimate whenever such marriages were lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. United States Courts 2015 (5-4)))
I don't know that any of these will be reversed . Of all of them I have the that no court would never have the temerity to reverse Loving . But it could.