The Justices that overturned Roe are “Constitutionalists.” They believe in taking the original Constitution literally, word for word. Their reasoning for overturning Roe is because “abortion” is not mentioned in the Constitution and, therefore, is not a “right” guaranteed to the people. But the right to urinate is not mentioned in the Constitution. Nor is the right to drink water. Nor the right to have indoor plumbing. Nor highways, bridges, airports, and many other things Americans have a right to. Their Constitutionalist “reasoning” is a delusion. They have been indoctrinated to slavishly follow that delusion, which they let override their own judgment and common sense, and renders them essentially unable to apply the principles of "justice" to their rulings.
Just like religious fundamentalists. But neither religious fundamentalists nor legal originalists can pass the sniff test. They would have to reject all amendments including the first 10.
And Amy Coney Island Barrett couldn't vote, couldn't serve on a jury, couldn't own property, and certainly could not be a judge!
Maybe some input from an attorney might help? First of all, as was mentioned below, unfortunately you are wrong that all of the things you mentioned are "rights." But those are beside the point. My constitutional law professor was a strict constructionist. Under that theory as stated in the 10th Amendment, anything not precluded by the Constitution was left to the States.
Consequently, 50 years ago had the Supreme Court decided that because it wasn't delegated to the United States or precluded by the states, abortion should have been left to the States.
But, and this is the important part, the Supreme Court 50 years ago decided that under the Fourteenth Amendment the right of privacy and other rights entwined in the right of privacy, like the right to abortion were therefore in the Constitution, the living Constitution philosophy.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis all following Supreme Court Justices took an oath and swore to follow stare decisis and opinions that are settled law and precedent. As Kavanaugh and Barrett Etc lied about in their Senate hearings. So technically, overturning Roe versus Wade under a strict constructionist theory was correct, but under stare decisis was incorrect.
So, just like judges have to interpret the meaning of "unreasonable" searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment, and how the court has interpreted "a well regulated militia..." regarding 2nd Amendment cases, the Supreme Court 50 years ago and every Court since was allowed to interpret privileges and immunities as a right to abortion and a right to privacy. So unless it can be proven that under no possible interpretation could that Court have been right, Roe versus Wade stands.
In 1927 the US Supreme Court decided that it was okay for states to sterilize inmates involuntarily. Amazingly that case Buck versus Bell has never been overturned but States stopped doing it.
I have heard Alito's arguments. It makes no sense. Why would abortion or anything else have to be a part of our Constitution? If we are using that document to prove our point then stopping women from voting is next. Maybe we can even bring slavery back if we try hard enough. People need to see and understand that when you vote GOP you are throwing away your rights. Mark my words that there will be something on the ballot next time about "for or against" on this issue.
Constitutional originalism does not address the simple reality that times change and conditions differ. And, while the framers were exceptionally smart, they could not foresee all the changes that would take place two or three hundred years down the line. To remain relevant, interpretations of the document have to evolve.
Your understanding is very flawed. Rights do not include urinating (a bodily function) plumbing, highways, or airports. Rights MUST be political, never economic. This is obvious because everyone has exactly the same rights. If a right was economic someone wold have to pay for it for you to enjoy and that is not equal is it?
If you said the government has no business regulating its citizens bodies, you'd have a good argument. The argument you posted is poor, at best.
Read the reply Matias gives you. His explanation is correct.
Alito cited some bullshit 16th century English dude as some sort of "explanation". Along with a lot of other bullshit.
Fuck the 6 justices who ruled to strip basic rights from Americans.
They're all liars and scumbags.
I hope they die painfully, and soon.
The concept is called "originalism" and it does not mean that things not mentioned in the Constitution do not exist or that there cannot be rights except those in the constitition, but it's about the interpretation of what is written in this text: that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".
The alternative would be to interpret these statements anew in the light of new situations .
This is NOT about abortion. It was never about Pro-Life, which is obvious. This was ALWAYS about having a dog-whistle to mobilize fascist Christian voters.
And NOW, that has morphed into a culture-war sledge-hammer. The fascist Christian judges have openly admitted they intend to undo every progressive measure EVER issued by SCOTUS, and to vindictively enable the MAGA White Christian Nationalist agenda. They have a big bundle of sticks and they intend to put out every eye they can think of. They get the vengeance they've sought for decades and Putin gets what he wants.
Maybe those assholes have no right to breathe. Color me not sympathetic if any of them are assassinated, not that it will ever happen. They have too much security provided them by now, and anyway, the left gave up violence decades ago, unlike our own modern domestic terrorists on the right.