It did not protect the right recognized in Loving to marry across racial lines. “It did not protect the rights recognized in Lawrence and Obergefell to same-sex intimacy and marriage. The law also did not then (and would not for ages) protect a wealth of other things,” they wrote. “The law offered no protection to the woman’s choice in the 19th century. The majority that says those precedents are safe has got to know that future justices won’t be bound to anything this court says. “I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over- ruling of those precedents and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.” In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh mentions Loving by name: “First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage -in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.” Alito argued that abortion was different because it dealt with “potential life.” “None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |