Substantive Due Process Fundamental Right to Privacy - anachronistic or not?

Fri Sep 29 13:59:07 PDT 2006

Yeah - but that was the seventies (ok that is post -Roe, but barely)

yb

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
The John Marshall Law School
315 S. Plymouth Ct. 
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 427-2737 (phone)
(312) 427-9974 (fax)

***/////////////////////////////////////////***

-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Maltz [mailto:emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu] 
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 3:58 PM
To: Barksdale, Yvette; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Substantive Due Process Fundamental Right to Privacy -
anachronistic or not?

In Zabllocki v. Redhail (1978), the Court characterized the right to
marry 
as an aspect of the right of privacy.

At 03:23 PM 9/29/2006 -0500, Barksdale, Yvette wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6E405.2C76031B"
>
>Hi folks,
>
>
>
>My students today had an extreme reaction to what I thought was a
fairly 
>innocuous statement which was that Supreme Court jurisprudence no
longer 
>protects a fundamental right to privacy, but instead, post-Roe,
protects 
>various interests that used to be designated as privacy interests (most

>notably  abortion) as liberty interests.
>
>
>
>They worked overtime to try to prove that, yes there really is a 
>constitutional right to privacy. For example, they relied  heavily upon

>Lawrence, which does protect intimate personal relationships, but 
>explicitly does so as an aspect of liberty.  Nevertheless, the most
they 
>were willing to concede was that a right to privacy indeed still
existed, 
>but  the Supreme Court just decided to call it liberty.
>
>
>
>Ive never had this happen before. (Although this year I decided to
start 
>the course with Griswold I usually have started with equal protection 
>because it is easier. Maybe thats it.)
>
>
>
>But I am posting for a reality check I have always thought this point 
>fairly non-controversial. The Supreme Court hasnt based a decision on
the 
>right to privacy, post- Roe. Certainly they have protected the same 
>interests that they previously designated as privacy rights [ marriage,

>procreation, etc.] but they have done so intentionally under the rubric
of 
>liberty. Cases like Lawrence which involve spatial privacy (in the
home, 
>e.g.) perhaps might be more ambiguous but the decisional privacy
concept 
>seems to me has clearly  morphed  into an aspect of liberty the freedom
to 
>make basic decisions about matters that are important to ones
identity., 
>etc. without undue intervention by the state).
>
>
>
>Any comments?  (One  idea I had was that maybe the recent Roberts/Alito

>nominations brought  privacy back into the limelight with the focus on 
>abortion rights so maybe thats why privacy has become a fighting word)
>
>
>
>yb
>
>
>
>***/////////////////////////////////////////***
>
>
>
>Professor Yvette M. Barksdale
>
>The John Marshall Law School
>
>315 S. Plymouth Ct.
>
>Chicago, IL 60604
>
>(312) 427-2737 (phone)
>
>(312) 427-9974 (fax)
>
>
>
>***/////////////////////////////////////////***
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Martin J. Sweet
>Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:59 PM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE: Important SCT Cases?
>
>
>
>A new paper recently delivered at a panel I chaired at the American 
>Political Science Association Annual Meeting uses network analysis to 
>craft a measure for the importance of cases. The authors, Spriggs,
Fowler, 
>Johnson, Jeon and Wahlbeck use the number of citations to and from a
case 
>to craft a more reliable measure of importance than traditional
measures. 
>You can find the paper on SSRN at: 
><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=906827#PaperDownloa
d>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=906827#PaperDownloa
d
>
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>******************************
>
>Martin J. Sweet
>
>Assistant Professor of Political Science
>
>Honors College
>
>Florida Atlantic University
>
>5353 Parkside Drive
>
>Jupiter, Florida 33458
>
>561.799.8228
>
><http://www.fau.edu/~msweet4>www.fau.edu/~msweet4
>
>msweet4 at fau.edu
>
>******************************
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ringhand, Lori
>Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:10 PM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Important SCT Cases?
>
>
>
>I am putting together a list of the most important cases decided by the

>Supreme Court during the past six terms. In compiling the list, I am 
>looking at things like media coverage and amicus briefs filed. I also 
>would like to consider the assessment of law professors and other Court

>watchers.  Suggestions of cases to include can be sent to me privately
or 
>on list. I would like to end up with a list of 35-40 cases. Thanks for
any 
>suggestions you may have.
>
>
>
>Lori Ringhand
>
>Associate Professor of Law
>
>University of Kentucky College of Law
>
>Lexington, KY 40502
>
>859 257 8754
>
><mailto:lring2 at uky.edu>lring2 at uky.edu
>
>
>
>Blog: <http://ratiojuris.com>http://ratiojuris.com
>
>SSRN: <http://ssrn.com/author=332414>http://ssrn.com/author=332414
>
>Home Page: 
><http://www.uky.edu/Law/faculty/ringhand.html>http://www.uky.edu/Law/fa
culty/ringhand.html
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.