Thread by @ThinkJoMice

I used to be proud the SCOTUS used its power to ensure federal and state governments controlled by political or religious zealots couldn't criminalize conduct of a personal nature unless the law was "Necessary to a Compelling State Interest"

#DemVoice1 #BlueVoices 1/12

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court first held that from the "penumbra" of rights in the Constitution a "Right to Privacy" existed that precluded Connecticut from criminalizing a married couple's use of contraception

Over time, the Right to Privacy embraced the

2/12

rights to: inter-racial marriage, travel, viewing pornography, a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the right to die, gay and lesbian intimacy, the right to same-sex marriage, and others

GQP political and religious zealots, along with Justices believing in

3/12

Textualist and Originalist interpretations of the Constitution like Amy Comey Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito who authored the draft opinion, have branded a "Right to Privacy" and expansion of individual liberties as "Judicial Activism"

Now, 50 years after

4/12

Roe provided 4 generations of women protection from unwanted pregnancy a Supreme Court "PACKED" by Mitch McConnell's dirty tricks is about to strip women of the right to control their bodies, reproductive health and their financial futures

At page 62, Alito tries to quell

5/12

fears that this decision is a prelude to the court overturning other personal liberties identified under the "Right to Privacy" saying:

"And to ensure that our decision is not mis- understood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional

6/12

right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion"

Yet, on Page 9 Alito wrote:

"Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that

7/12

the abortion right, which is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, WHICH IS ALSO NOT MENTIONED"

Are we supposed to trust Justice Alito that the "Right to Privacy" that he points out isn't mentioned in the Constitution is safe from this Court?

8/12

Can we trust Justices who follow one religious belief that life begins at conception without regard to other religions that believe that life begins at birth (Judaism) or Christians who believe life begins when a fetus takes its first breath 👇

9/12

thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/the-…

Sadly, this Court has proven itself unworthy of the publics' trust of it to be guardians of individual liberties and I fear that every right deemed to be a "Fundamental Right" under "Right to Privacy" will be under attack from an "Alito Court" that cares NOT about public

10/12

opinion or the harm this decision will cause to both men and women in the future

Alito made clear at Page 65 his contempt for the public writing:

"We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision overruling Roe and Casey"

11/12

"And even if we could foresee what will happen we have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision"

So, Alito is a modern-day Marie-Antoinette saying: "Let them eat cake" as a fraudulently seated conservative majority engages in "Judicial Activism"

12/12