Fox News Digital spoke with a variety of attorneys and professors who weighed in on parental consent and the rights of teachers to discuss gender identity.
judicial policymaking, is it not? senator, the supreme court has consider that to be an application of the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment. and the constitution doesn t mention anything about the substance when it talks about due process? the 14th in the 15th amendment don t talk about substantive due process, talks about due process of law, correct? correct. oh one of the things that concerns me is here is an example of the court s finding a new fundamental right that is mentioned nowhere in the document of the constitution. it is the product of simply court made law that we are all supposed to salute smartly and follow, because nine people who
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right, and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area w
can t deprive a person of liberty without due process of law. and the court interpreted it the right to physical autonomy including the right to end a previability pregnancy. so it s all the above? well, that s how the court has interpreted the liberty clause for over 100 years in cases going back to myier, griswold, loving, lawrence. yeah, but i mean, all of those sort of just come out of lockner. so it s that we ve dropped part of it. i understand what you re saying, but what i m trying to focus on is to lower the level of generality or be more specific. we used to say it was a right to privacy that the court found in the due process, substantive due process clause. okay? or in substantive due process. i m trying to get you to tell me what are we relying on now?
make a family decisions and the right to physical autonomy including the right to end a pre-viability pregnancy. so it s all of the above. that s how the court interpreted the liberty clause for over 100 years in cases going back to meyer, griswald, carey, loving, lawrence. all of those come out of lochner so we ve dropped part of it. so i understand what you have are saying but what i m trying to focus on is if we is to lower the level of generality or be a little more specific. in the old days we used to say it was a right to privacy the court found in the due process, substantive due process clause, okay, or in substantive due process. what are we relying on now? is it privacy? is it autonomy? what is it? it continues to be liberty and the right exists whatever