Today's innocuous data is tomorrow's political target.
I don't want law enforcement having _any_ of my health/medical data. Without an even playing field this can turn into another "privacy for me but not for thee" situation.
I don't want law enforcement having _any_ of my health/medical data. Without an even playing field this can turn into another "privacy for me but not for thee" situation.
She is now terrified that abortion will be made retroactively illegal and she will be captured by bounty hunters. Her family's generational experiences with other Lists didn't end so well for them.
I'd tell her the retroactive thing is silly and has never happened before, but precedent no longer seems to be a factor in Supreme Court decisions so I can't help but feel I'm telling a German Jew in 1935 that she's being silly and there's nothing to worry about.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-2/...
Here's a pdf by the congressional research service discussing the nuances: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11293.pdf
For its constitutionality to be challenged, it has to be escalated all the way to the Supreme Court. This can take years, does not happen for free, and in the end, the trolls who sit on the Supreme Court retain the right to refuse to hear it.
The system appears to be very broken.
I know this decision is awful for many people and has created justified anger, but this isn't the Anschluss. The people who did this aren't trying to destroy every venerated legal structure in the country to impose their will.
Not saying it's 100% impossible for some crazy thing to happen, your wife's anxiety is understandable, but I think a bit of perspective could help avoid needless panic.
I would also remember that Trump's bid to disregard the election was shut down in part by judges he appointed. Legal conservatives do actually want to conserve the legal traditions of the country, for the most part.
Are we able to draw a distinction between people who have a perspective we profoundly disagree with - even despise - and utterly ruthless, insane monsters?
What would happen if a state law against abortion already existed before Roe vs Wade. It has been unenforceable, but was never repealed by state legislature. Would it be legal to retroactively enforce that law now?
I know my state had such laws, and there was a push to get them repealed after Barrett was appointed. Don't know if retroactive enforcement was a concern or just future enforcement.
Precedence has never been binding on the Supreme Court: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru...
If it was, we'd still be under Plessy v. Ferguson.
But unlike abortion, protection from ex post facto laws wasn't determined by a judge to be a right. It's written very plainly in the Constitution itself, and I'm very confident that won't change within my lifetime.