Precedent is a thing that lets you call humans property. The lack of enshrined right to privacy in the constitution makes it a weak invention that can be overturned.
One supreme court review that looks disfavorably on the brandeis of yore is all it takes to vanish roe v wade in an instant.
Judicial review is not the supreme power in the US, constitutional amendments are stronger, and without one, privacy laws are on unsure footing, ready to topple.
Without such a guaranteed right, the governments been free to engage in mass surveillance, the courts can hide behind jurisdiction or national security, the edge cases of abortion remain battlegrounds with the right often impinged upon.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater no matter what the Constitution says. All rights have limits, and the legal term for that is "compelling interest".

i like the country culture better, had plenty of tastes of both



do you think the USSC would put the issue back on the states though? should they be fearful of interstate disputes on an issue as contentious as this? people driving across state lines for abortions is bad optics and lets the states politicize the issue further. i've always felt its a dead issue and the only recourse would be states defunding and dealing with the consequences of that.

There is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, it is not in any way guaranteed, it only exists as an implicit construct via a narrow interpretation.
The freedom of speech is an explicit right, limited by compelling interests. The right to privacy is not an explicit right. The danger to it isn't being restricted by conflicting rights, but being handwaved into oblivion by a future court.



They wouldn't touch it with a 10 ft pole. Its a dead issue because of the political nash equilibrium, the court being as partisan as ever.
Any speculation of what they'd do for it on states rights vs overturn, its all subject to political gaming which as of yet is absolutely firmly in the status quo on both camps, so its pointless to try to predict

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 10 2017 12:45pm

So you're willing to obliterate what expectation we do have for privacy so that the state can completely control female reproduction? If this happens the cat is out of the bag completely. State already has too much power over life as it is. Biopower run wild. Personally I'm glad we have non-authoritarian judges from time to time to limit the rights of government over man.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 10 2017 12:44pm

Blue states just have to radicalize and stop subsidizing the Red states. Embrace low federal taxation and turn it inward.

I'm willing to point out that your expectation for privacy is paper thin and can be stripped away whenever it suits the political climate, because it takes the low bar of simply arguing it into non-existence.
Biopower, authoritarianism and state rights have nothing to do with that. A few textualists taking a dump on conjured rights would make you reevaluate how in the bag it was

As fickle as the public is I wouldn't be surprised if we shit the bed and ditched any pretense to actually being free. For example I love how MRA's can attack HRC for defending a man accused of rape but won't mention political prosecutions perpetuated by the person being confirmed now in defense of Southern Apartheid. There is some major cognitive dissonance going on.

Gee and here I was ready to discuss damnum absque injuria and the deep-seated abhorrence of the invasions of social privacy, and you just wanted to be a partisan shill.
I bet you didn't even realize I was saying there should be a constitutional amendment for the right to privacy

Crocodile tears

There is no way the authoritarian right will scale back the surveillance state. And we have let a guy with less ethics, more petty, and with a list longer than, Tricky Dick Nixon himself. We have one of the greatest defenders of the apartheid south being appointed to AG. Every secretary appointed is in charge of something they hate, including a guy who is in charge of a department he would have eliminated had he remembered its name. I'm just trying to prevent a derailment from these political facts occurring and being dealt with.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 10 2017 01:01pm