Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
True. You will see loads of states start challenging freedoms and rights by distinguishing between liberties and “ordered liberties.” And having read the difference between the two offered in the opinion, I think I can define them:
Ordered liberties are those Alito likes, while mere liberties are those he doesn’t.
His distinction between the two is so facile, so invented of whole cloth (and hidden between cherry picked out of context musings on the subject by Ginsburg, smugly offered) that definition is accurate. He took those categories, blurred the meaning, and simply lumped what he didn’t like into the mere liberties bucket.
|
Idaho is setting up a case challenging Griswold.
If you read Alito's previous writing, it's pretty clear how challenges to things like gay marriage will go. From his dissent in Obergefell, you'll find some words that are almost verbatim from the Dodd draft: "To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. See United States v.
Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting)
(slip op., at 7)." He's kind of already written the opinion overruling Obergefell and Windsor.
Threaded Mode