You can probably assume they’re using this as an example of an “invented” right that many here would agree with, to say it’s not necessarily a bad thing for courts to “invent” a right.
If anything, it's problematic. Like, why do cops have immunity? Why do they deserve it, and why does SCOTUS get to invent 'qualified immunity'?
Of course, yet another person brings up Roe v Wade, and didn't read the briefs. The crux of that was that states had a patchwork of laws, and some of those laws required violating privacy laws. Abortion rights were predicated upon doctor-patient privacy. The briefs also stated that first trimester should be no issue for abortion, second is not recommended, and 3rd was at threat of life of mother. That's a pretty decent and well thought standard.
And....
> So was woman's right to vote?
Are you for fucking serious? Have you not heard of the 19th amendment? This isn't legislating from the bench. This is 'passes constitutional muster and is part of the constution'
The North may have won the war, but the South effectively won. And then Jim Crow took hold with anti-black laws everywhere. Wasn't illegal to discriminate. And discriminatory practices took hold everywhere, even in the North. It's why bridges out of NYC were sized too small, to keep out black people from the beaches.
It took to 1964 to get the Civil Rights Act, 100 years after we supposedly won. Shitty win.
And even now, sure the laws are in parity, but so many things aren't. Black babies die at 3x their white baby counterparts. Black pregnant women die 4x as often in childbirth than whites. And parity in wages is a massive thing. And schooling.