Social Question

ragingloli's avatar

Since, according to the republican justices, unenumerated rights are not rights unless they are "deeply rooted in tradition", what aspects would count towards such an assessment?

Asked by ragingloli (51968points) June 28th, 2022

Because clearly something being a right for almost 50 years is not enough to qualify as “deeply rooted in tradition”.
Is it 100 years? 200 years? Or is such a judgement completely arbitrary and purely “rooted” in the judge’s political beliefs?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

5 Answers

Blackberry's avatar

Everything that’s a tradition in America is bad, morally.

It really hurts these people that the world is progressing and making them irrelevant.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Nothing. Because they are using a deliberately ambiguous definition, they can decide on anything (or nothing) to make their case.

This is a cop-out on their part.

kevbo1's avatar

I read about this online somewhere and there’s a test named after a case that I suppose is the standard. Basically, it’s any right that was commonly accepted at the time the 14th amendment was passed. These rights are determined to pass the test because there is textual evidence of them widely being considered rights up through the passing of the 14th amendment. Alito and company say that abortion was not such a right and, further, was commonly criminalized leading up to the passing of the 14th amendment.

I had been wondering about how Dobbs affects downstream judgements on gay marriage, interracial marriage, birth control, and sodomy. Apparently, interracial marriage is not affected because the discrimination involved is more explicitly prohibited by the 14th amendment.

At one level, this is a contest between two different readings of the Constitution. The dissenting justices are aligned with the belief the Constitution is a living document that can evolve with case law to stay more in step with society. The majority, however, believes judgments should honor the Constitution as written (in historical context) and that federal-level changes to enumerated rights is the purview of the legislative branch of government. Legislators can pass federal laws and/or amend the Constitution if needed.

That last bit has me wondering why neither side has passed a federal law in the last 50 years.

If the Constitution doesn’t enumerate a right, then originalists believe the authority for that right is “the people and its legislators” (i.e. the states) and not the federal government.

JLoon's avatar

Child labor.
Slavery.
Lynching.
Theft of Native land.
Corporate monopolies.
Debtors prisons.
Contaminated food & drugs.

Basically any “tradition” that makes Alioto and The Robed Raiders feel kind of nostalgic .

JLoon's avatar

Oh – I left out the condferate Civil War theories: Nullification and secession.

Lets Make America Grim Allover.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther