The Supreme Court has Repeatedly Upheld that the Right to Privacy is Protected by the Constitution

… until NOW.

Where we see that Sam Alito and his cohorts have decided that they should be the final word, on WHAT Libertiesare guaranteed by the American Constitution.

Apparently all those prior SCOTUS Decisions upholding the Right to Personal Privacy— are ALL full of hot air (“wrongly decided”). So says Sam Alito and his ideological cohorts.

Apparently all those prior SCOTUS Decisions can be tossed aside, because “only Sam knows” how to interpret “American Liberties”… consigned upon us by the Founders, the Bill of Rights, and expansive Amendments that followed.

Stare decisisbe damned—there are strict Originalists in town, so gain way everybody. They’ve got the McConnell keys to the Constitutional Bulldozer — and no one’s going to stand in their way.

Not even prior Court precedents.

—

First let’s take a stroll down SCOTUS memory lane. To look and see how the Justices Prior to Alito, viewed the many Liberties that we as Americans, have just taken as granted ...

[Emphasis added]

Is There a 'Right to Privacy' Amendment?
[...]
Constitutional Privacy Rights
Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights:
First Amendment: Provides the freedom to choose any kind of religious belief and to keep that choice private.
Third Amendment: Protects the zone of privacy of the home.
Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.
Ninth Amendment: This amendment is interpreted to justify a broad reading the Bill of Rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for in the first eight amendments.
Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc.
As technology evolves, so does the due process and rules governing the collection and use of private information. In 2012, the Supreme Court Justices made the unanimous decision reviewing the constitutionality of warrantless searches of cell phones, and the Court held that the personal information contained in cell phones and other handheld devices is just as worthy of constitutional protection as more traditional types of information and records.
Personal Information Protection
The federal government protects personal information through a series of laws enacted by Congress. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary agency enforcing privacy policy and enforcement since the 1970s. [...]
www.findlaw.com

Chapter 22: The Right of Privacy
[...] She [Estelle Griswold]opened a birth control clinic and set out to ensure that police had no choice but to arrest her for breaking the law. Acting on a complaint, police visited the clinic, where Griswold made certain they saw the banned activities and products. Even though the prosecutor normally declined to bring cases like this to trial, Estelle Griswold’s unwillingness to have the arrest dismissed led to her trial and conviction for violating the state law. She finally had the case that demonstrated harm.
When this case reached the Supreme Court in 1965, the justices sided with Griswold. Writing for the 7-to-2 majority, Justice William O. Douglas ruled that marital relations between a husband and wife were a basic “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights.” The Constitution protected this right even if it did not mention it specifically. It was an implied right, one that was part of the “penumbra,” or shadow, of several amendments. The First Amendment, for example, contained a freedom to associate privately; the Third and Fourth Amendments protected the sanctity of private homes; the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination allowed an accused person to keep information private. The majority also found the right of privacy guaranteed in part by the Ninth Amendment, which reserved to the people any rights not named in the Bill of Rights. Rights are expansive, not restrictive, and whenever fundamental rights are at stake, Justice Arthur Goldberg noted in a concurring opinion, the state must have a compelling purpose for abridging these liberties. Invading the “sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” was not a legitimate reason, Goldberg wrote.
Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark case in establishing constitutional protection for the right of privacy, and it received widespread approval. For Estelle Griswold, it was vindication for a cause she held dear. Three months after the decision, she reopened the birth control clinic in New Haven, and she remained active in women’s causes until her death in 1981. [...]
www.annenbergclassroom.org

What is the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution largely expanded protections of rights for citizens at the state level. It was adopted in 1868 during the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War, aiming to protect rights of formerly enslaved people in the South who were being subject to new discriminatory state laws.
The first section of the amendment contains the clause popularly known as the “equal protection” clause, that requires that everyone must be equally protected and equally treated under the law.
The clause has been invoked in major Supreme Court rulings involving civil rights.
The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling found that racial segregation of public schools imposed by law by some states at the time violated the equal protection clause.
[...]
The 14th Amendment’s due process clause and the constitutional “right to privacy”
The 14th Amendment also establishes the right to due process at the state level. Due process has been used by the Supreme Court to strike down state legislation that restricts personal liberties and interests not explicitly mentioned in the Constitutionlike the right to privacy.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling relied on this clause when it concluded that prohibiting abortion violated a right to privacy under the Constitution by restricting a person’s ability to choose whether to have an abortion.
In the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges case, the Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violated the due process clause.
www.usatoday.com

—

Now enters Sam Alito, empowered by Mitch and the Federalist Society court-packers, to summarily overturn our once cherished “Liberties” apple-cart ...

Explaining Alito's Leaked Draft Opinion Overturning Roe v. Wade
www.findlaw.com
[...]
Justice Alito's Constitutional Arguments in Dobbs
Alito starts his opinion in Dobbs by heavily criticizing Roe v. Wade and its successor Planned Parenthood v. Casey. According to Alito, the court's holding in Roe has unclear roots in the Constitution. The court must overturn Roe, Alito argues, because "[t]he Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision . . . including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
According to Alito's reasoning, Roe was "remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text." Alito notes that Roe rests not on any single constitutional provision, but on five: the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments.
However, because the majorities in Roe and Casey relied largely on the 14th Amendment, Alito spends a lot of time criticizing their interpretations of the unenumerated rightsgranted by "substantive due process," which the Supreme Court has occasionally found in the 14th Amendment in cases dating back to at least the mid-20th century.
A Historical Look at Abortion Rights
The majority in Roe held that any constitutional right to privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." In Dobbs, Alito disagrees, writing that "any such [substantive due process] right must be deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition . . . [t]he right to an abortion does not fall within this category."
Alito argues that a historical analysis is essential because a right to "liberty" (which Casey held as the basis for the right to abortion) is not clear enough to grant anything specific. "In interpreting what is meant by the 14th Amendment's reference to liberty," he writes, "we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protectswith our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy."
[...]
www.findlaw.com

Funny, I thought it was this idea of Liberty, of personal space, of personal privacy, of determining our own destinies — that these ideals were indeed some of the essential things, that DID in fact make America Great.

No longer it seems. The GOP’s flirtation with Authoritarianism has finally reached its long-sought conclusion:

We only have the Liberties, that they say we can have. Period. End of Story.

Can the GOP-MAGA thought police, be that far behind?

Vote this year like your freedom-loving Life and Liberties depended on it — because it surely does …

Alito is just getting warmed up. If he is set on returning us to the 1700’s — were all in for a world of hurt.

What’s to stop him?