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.
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 amunition needed to start the reversal of Roe and could eventually result in colateral 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 country in just a few hours .
Do you believe that in 1890 when a brilliant legal mind, who would eventually be thought as one of the greatest Supreme court justices in our history, co-authored an article in the Harvard Law Review, suggesting that within the fourteenth amendment lived a “right of privacy.” That the world anticipated the reliance upon the Automobile that would occur within a few years?
Do you think that in 1928 when that same legal scholar, who in 1890 as a young attorney revealed his brilliance by suggesting that a right of privacy , lived in the 14th amenment ,now made that same suggestion to the country , in a dissent in Olmstead v The United States that Justice Brandeis was prescient to know that within 70 yeardmost people in the country would own a personal computer that eventually could allow them to spy on their neighbors?
Do you believe that in 1965 when another legal giant. William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut and was the first case to acknowledge a of privacy exists within the "Penumbras" of the 14th amendment had anticipated an internet that will allow any government to invade your privacy in a matter of seconds ?
None of the specifics were anticipated. However, they did anticipate progress , and that is why much of the constitution is written so vaguely, and why it is also so irresponsible for any justice to not consider collateral damage that will occur by virtue of their insistence upon decided cases based the antiquated guidelines used to support originalism.
But Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, insist upon every decision being based upon the original intent and thought of our forefather.
Unless James Madison included the internet in the constitution originalism make s no sense..
Casey set in to motion the gradual change in abortion laws throughout the nation. The penalties that were attached to these new laws hit a peak two years when the right realized the path to get rid the Right to Privacy and Roe at the same time had just been given to them. in a little known case called Hyatt v. Franchise Tax Board of California- (2019)( the holding in this is not important. What is important is CJ Roberts vote . At the time there was a question how the court would vote . Kavanagh, Thomas and Alito would all definately vote to overturn, and if I had to bet , I would say that Gorsuch would too. The question was always Roberts. Roberts voting against stare decises gave pro-lifers confidence ,
Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent recognized the damaged caused by the disrespect for the doctrine of Stare Desises.
Breyers Dissent "To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay."[21] In the opinion, Breyer named Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case that narrowly affirmed 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 vot eto 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 dismiss . But the right wing wanted one to be heard ny this supreme court. The death Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an dthew speed thta Amy Comey Barett was sent through the process, guaranteed that regardless of Robert's Vote, Roe and Casey were dead.
The holding In Griswold v Connecticut in which Justice Douglas found in the " penobras " the 14 th Amendment to the constitution "The right of privacy.Which through the imagination and wisdom Justices Louis Brandeis and William O. Douglas gave us the fundamental righ t of privacy . This right appears in the constitutions of mopre than 150 countries , but not the United States,
Nowhere in the constitution is the word "Privacy" ever mentioned
Finding this set up the dominoes that we relied upon in the equal protection and civil rights 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 fall as they did in Kelley v. Johnson in 1976 and in Planned Parenthood vs Casey in 1992 .
The slight slip in Casey gave the right wing their amunition to reverse Roe and eventually send the dominoes falling which will in colateral damage that wil 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 fappeared in article in the December 15, 1890 issue of the Harvard Law Review n , written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, entitled "The Right to Privacy."
This article is often cited as the first explicit finding of a U.S. 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 country in just a few hours .
Do you believe that in 1890 when a brilliant legal mind, who would eventually be thought as one of the greatest Supreme court justices in our history, co-authored an article in the Harvard Law Review, suggesting that within the fourteenth amendment lived a “right of privacy.” That the world anticipated the reliance upon the Automobile that would occur within a few years?
Do you think that in 1928 when that same legal scholar, who in 1890 as a young attorney revealed his brilliance by suggesting that a right of privacy , lived in the 14th amenment ,now made that same suggestion to the country , in a dissent in Olmstead v The United States that Justice Brandeis was prescient to know that within 70 yeardmost people in the country would own a personal computer that eventually could allow them to spy on their neighbors?
Do you believe that in 1965 when another legal giant. William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut and was the first case to acknowledge a of privacy exists within the "Penumbras" of the 14th amendment had anticipated an internet that will allow any government to invade your privacy in a matter of seconds ?
None of the specifics were anticipated. However, they did anticipate progress , and that is why much of the constitution is written so vaguely, and why it is also so irresponsible for any justice to not consider collateral damage that will occur by virtue of their insistence upon decided cases based the antiquated guidelines used to support originalism.
But Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, insist upon every decision being based upon the original intent and thought of our forefather.
Unless James Madison included the internet in the constitution originalism make s no sense..
Casey set in to motion the gradual change in abortion laws throughout the nation. The penalties that were attached to these new laws hit a peak two years when the right realized the path to get rid the Right to Privacy and Roe at the same time had just been given to them. in a little known case called Hyatt v. Franchise Tax Board of California- (2019)( the holding in this is not important. What is important is CJ Roberts vote . At the time there was a question how the court would vote . Kavanagh, Thomas and Alito would all definately vote to overturn, and if I had to bet , I would say that Gorsuch would too. The question was always Roberts. Roberts voting against stare decises gave pro-lifers confidence ,
Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent recognized the damaged caused by the disrespect for the doctrine of Stare Desises.
Breyers Dissent "To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay."[21] In the opinion, Breyer named Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case that narrowly affirmed 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 vot eto 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 dismiss . But the right wing wanted one to be heard ny this supreme court. The death Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an dthew speed thta Amy Comey Barett was sent through the process, guaranteed that regardless of Robert's Vote, Roe and Casey were dead.the myopic righ tcourt has created.
The holding In Griswold v Connecticut in which Justice Douglas found in the " penobras " the 14 th Amendment to the constitution "The right of privacy.Which gave Griswold and many cases that would ultimately rely upon the holding in Griswold .
This decision in Griswold startedus building the dominoes that would be know n as the "right of privacy.'
Nowhere in the constitution is the word "Privacy" ever mentioned. set up the dominoes that we relied upon in the equal protection and civil rights 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 fall as they did in Kelley v. Johnson in 1976 and in Planned Parenthood vs Casey in 1992 .
The slight slip in Casey gave the right wing their amunition to reverse Roe and eventually send the dominoes falling which will in colateral damage that wil 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 fappeared in article in the December 15, 1890 issue of the Harvard Law Review n , written by attorney Samuel D. Warren and future U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, entitled "The Right to Privacy."
This article is often cited as the first explicit finding of a U.S. 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 considered that within then next hundred years, we would be able to travel across the country in just a few hours .
Do you believe that in 1890 when a brilliant legal mind, who would eventually be thought as one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in our history, co-authored an article in the Harvard Law Review, suggesting that within the fourteenth amendment lived a “right of privacy.” That the world anticipated the reliance upon the Automobile that would occur within a few years?
Do you think that in 1928 when that same legal scholar, who in 1890 as a young attorney revealed his brilliance by suggesting that a right of privacy , lived in the 14th amenment ,now made that same suggestion to the country , in a dissent in Olmstead v The United States that Justice Brandeis was prescient enough to know that within 70 years most people in the country would own a personal computer that eventually could allow them to spy on their neighbors?
Do you believe that in 1965 when another legal giant. William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut and was the first case to acknowledge a of privacy exists within the "Penumbras" of the 14th amendment did he come to this conclusion because he alone had anticipated an internet that will allow any government to invade your privacy in a matter of seconds ?
None of the specifics were anticipated. However, they did anticipate progress , and that is why much of the constitution is written so vaguely, and why it is also so irresponsible for any justice to not consider collateral damage that will occur by virtue of their insistence upon decided cases based the antiquated guidelines used to support originalism.
But Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, insist upon every decision being based upon the original intent and thought of our forefather.
Unless James Madison included the internet in the constitution originalism makes no sense and is terribly irresponsible.
Casey set in to motion the gradual change in abortion laws throughout the nation. The penalties that were attached to these new laws hit a peak two years when the right realized the path to get rid the Right to Privacy and and Roe was just set before them.
In a little known case called Hyatt v. Franchise Tax Board of California- (2019)( the holding in this is not important. What is important is CJ Roberts vote . At the time there was a question how the court would vote . Kavanagh, Thomas and Alito would all definately vote to overturn, and if I had to bet , I would say that Gorsuch would too. The question was always Roberts. Roberts voting against stare decises gave pro-lifers confidence .) the confidence that Roe and the Right would soon be relugated to the history books was set before them.
Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent recognized the damage caused by the disrespect for the doctrine of Stare Desises.
Breyers Dissent "To overrule a sound decision like Hall is to encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases; it is to make it more difficult for lawyers to refrain from challenging settled law; and it is to cause the public to become increasingly uncertain about which cases the court will overrule and which cases are here to stay."[21] In the opinion, Breyer named Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case that narrowly affirmed 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 otr 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.
Tomorrow I will start to introduce to the history of t he right of privacy , by introducing to those just justices who build the foundation that created thsi concept (Brandeis, Douglas, Harlan, Clark, Warrnen, Brennan and others. )
And the justices that stood in the way and ehy they did (Black and White) .
I will introduce the holding s in Olmstead and Griswold
SEE yOU TOMORROW SAME BAT TIME SAME BAT STATION.
