One of the reasons conservatives oppose large government because it interferes with individual freedom.  True North: The Principles of Conservatism, The Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/truenorth.  As one prominent conservative think tank states: “The election of Donald J. Trump as president offers the best opportunity in decades to shrink the size and power of government and increase individual liberty.” Freedom rising under President Trump,”  The Heartland Institute, https://www.heartland.org/topics/government-politics/trump-action-plan/Trump-Freedom-Rising/index.html.  This idea is displayed by conservatives who fly the Gadsden flag which carries the motto “Dont Tread on Me,” “Conservatives defend Chris Pratt for wearing 'Don't Tread On Me' T-shirt,”  The Hill, https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/453488-conservatives-defend-chris-pratt-for-wearing-dont-tread-on-me  Conservatives demand liberty and privacy from government expansion.  In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed.” Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972).  “Without doubt, [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized ... as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to bodily integrity so she can follow the dictates of her own conscience on whether or not to have an abortion.  That decision was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 

Roe v. Wade holds that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment in its self-incrimination clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  See. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) (invalidating state law banning contraceptives.   In multiple Supreme Court decisions, i.e., Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court has upheld the constitutional value of Roe v. Wade.  Clearly, Roe is a precedential decision.

Every law student in their first year of law school is taught that binding precedent (also known as a mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all lower courts under common law legal systems.  Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law.  Existing binding precedent from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy.

One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows:

Given a determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was necessary to the disposition of the precedent case; (3) the significant facts of the precedent case are also presented in the pending case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant.  Rombauer, Marjorie D. (1978). Legal Problem Solving: Analysis, Research and Writing (3rd ed.). West Publishing. pp. 22–23.
 
Roe  has wide implications for other areas of law.  “Bodily integrity” requires personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. Before Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, protections against bodily intrusion, such as forcing criminal suspects to physically produce bodily evidence of drug possession, were not well defined. But Casey cited this earlier line of precedent in placing the right to abortion at the intersection of personal decision-making and government interference. In so doing, Casey established an enduring right to bodily integrity.  It cannot be doubted that Roe’s privacy right is consistent is among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage."

Conservatives must follow their own teachings and not tread on a pregnant woman's right to bodily integrity.

ANDREA SAHOURI.  BING GUAN.  GO NAKAMURA. MARK ABRAMSON. KITRA CAHANA. ARIANA DREHSLER. JARED GOYETTE.  CRAIG LASSIG. MICHAEL SHUM. KATIE NELSON.  TANNEN MAURY.

Who are these people? 

All reporters or photojournalists targeted by the police for arrest and some even prosecuted.  Law enforcement attacks on journalism have become so bad that reporters requested a retraining order in federal court to stop law enforcement from attacking, harassing and retaliating against reporters covering the Daunte Wright protests.  Law enforcement has shot journalists with rubber bullets, pepper sprayed them, and arrested or threatened them with arrest.  Police have gone so far as to order the press to abandon their reporting.

And this is not an unusual situation as shown below:
​

And this does not count the subpoenas by prosecutors for journalists to produce their reporting materials or testify in court.  Freedom of the press—the right to report news or circulate opinion without censorship from the government—was considered “one of the great bulwarks of liberty,” by the Founding Fathers of the United States.  “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost,” Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1786.
 
To understand why freedom of the press is so important, it is necessary to understand freedom of the press in a historical context.

An early defense of press freedom was made by the poet John Milton in his 1644 pamphlet Areopagitica, written in response to the British Parliament’s passage of a law requiring the government to approve all books prior to publication. “Truth and understanding,” Milton argued, “are not such wares as to be monopoliz'd and traded in by tickets and statutes, and standards.” On December 2, 1766, the Swedish parliament passed legislation that is now recognized as the world’s first law supporting the freedom of the press and freedom of information. Narrowly, the Freedom of the Press Act abolished the Swedish government’s role as a censor of printed matter, and it allowed for the official activities of the government to be made public. More broadly, the law codified the principle—which has since become a cornerstone of democracies throughout the world—that individual citizens of a state should be able to express and disseminate information without fear of reprisal.

William Blackstone was an English legal scholar whose ideas shaped America.  The philosophy of the Declaration of Independence asserting the "self-evident" "unalienable Rights" of people granted by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" could have come, and probably did, from Blackstone's description of the rights of Englishmen under the British Constitution. The indictment against the Crown, the bulk of the Declaration, recites many of the absolute rights of individuals covered by Blackstone including the prohibition of taxation without consent.  Blackstone wrote, “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press.” 4 W. BLACKSTONE ’ S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 151–52 (T. Cooley, 2d rev. ed. 1872). See 3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1874–86 (1833)

The principle that the public has a right to be informed came to America in 1733 when New York newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, in a landmark jury trial, was acquitted of seditious libel on the grounds that the articles he printed, which were harshly critical of New York’s colonial governor, were nonetheless based on fact.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution enshrined the same principle in the document’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.”  Naturally, there has been a discussion about what the Founding Father’s “original intent” was in writing these words.  The answer is that nobody knows what the First Amendment originally meant. As leading First Amendment scholar (and former dean of Richmond Law) Rodney Smolla puts it, “One can keep going round and round on the original meaning of the First Amendment, but no clear, consistent vision of what the framers meant by freedom of speech will ever emerge.” A quick look at the history reinforces Smolla’s point. Only a decade after the Constitution went into effect, Americans vehemently disagreed over whether Congress could pass the Sedition Act of 1798, which banned false and malicious criticisms of the federal government. If the founders couldn’t even agree among themselves about that type of law, then surely looking for the First Amendment’s “original meaning” is like searching for the Holy Grail. 
​
However, what is clear is that The Virginia Declaration of Rights contained the first constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press.  The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights stated, “The freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments.”  Edmund Randolph, a member of the drafting committee, stated it was one of "the fruits of genuine democracy and historical experience. "'  James Madison would borrow from that declaration when drafting the First Amendment.  “Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.”  New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS joins, concurring).  The essential role of a free press in our democracy is to “to serve the governed, not the governors.  The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”  Id.  Not even a “President has ‘inherent power’ to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts.” Id. at 719.
 
The courts have reiterated the essential public service journalists play in reporting these events and enjoined police from targeting constitutionally protected activity. Id.; see also Abay v. City of Denver, 445 F. Supp. 3d 1286, 1292-93 (D. Colo. 2020) (“Here, it is clearly in the public interest to protect plaintiff’s right to demonstrate, the media’s ability to document that demonstration, and third parties’ ability to render aid to demonstrators without threat of excessive force by police.”); c.f. Black Lives Matter Seattle King County v. City of Seattle, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (W.D. Wash 2020) (enjoining the use of excessive force against protesters); Don’t Shoot Portland v. City of Portland, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Or. 2020) (same); Detroit Will Breathe v. City of Detroit, 484 F. Supp. 3d 511 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (same).
 
It is axiomatic that “the public interest favors protecting core First Amendment freedoms.” See Iowa Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Williams, 187 F.3d 963, 970 (8th Cir. 1999); see also Associated Press v. Otter, 682 F.3d 821, 626 (9th Cir. 2012)(“Courts considering requests for preliminary injunctions have consistently recognized the significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles.”); Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (granting an injunction under the Fourth Amendment and explaining “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights”).
 
Public interest in having events reported is greater than public interest in maintaining order and public safety.  While law enforcement agencies have an interest in maintaining order and public safety, that interest is not served by using force against individuals who identify as journalists, or who are merely recording events and present no threat of harm to police or the public.  Police have no significant interest in enforcing unconstitutional customs or policies.  See Ahmad v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 4:17 CV 2455 at 45 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2017) (injunction warranted in the absence of force or violent activity by protesters).
 
Freedom of press includes Plaintiffs a constitutional right to document protest activities, including law enforcement responses and behavior. See, e.g., ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) (“The making of an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.”); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011) (“Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.” (internal quotation omitted)); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (“The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.”).

In the book To Kill a Mockingbird, the lawyer Atticus Finch represents a “Negro” named Tom Robinson against the false accusations of sexual assault by the Ewell girl, a poor white “victim.”  Of course, the all-white, all male jury still convicts Tom because the testimony of a white female witness must be accepted over that of a black man.  How dare Atticus Finch represent a guilty person!
​
Author Kristen Alley once said To Kill a Mockingbird has you “taste injustice, even if it's fictional, really taste it, it has a way of doing that. Sometimes, you can never put the shoe on the other foot. We can't go back in time and know what it was like to be a black person then. Even today, when things are supposed to be so much better, not one of you can understand what it's like to be black, to live with the knowledge of what happened to your ancestry and still face injustice. But that book makes us taste it and, reading it, we know how bitter that taste is….”

Good criminal defense attorneys represent people even if the case is not popular or it looks like their client is guilty.  Atticus states this much more eloquently: “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.” 

It always surprises me how many people are outraged that I would defend someone accused by the police of a crime – from sexual assaults to drunk driving.  Arrest increasingly means guilt, and there is a public perception of criminal defense attorneys as being obstructionist, nefarious and somehow unethical. Certainly, every defense attorney tires of the ubiquitous cocktail party question: “How can you defend them?”

The answer to that question is complex, involving issues of possible innocence, inaccurate evidence, overcharging by the prosecutor, guarding constitutional rights, false or untrustworthy testimony, ensuring a fair trial, protection from unfair laws and harsh/illegal punishment — and just keeping the government honest.
One of the better answers was provided some years ago by United States Supreme Court Justice White in the landmark case of United States vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 256-58 (1967):

Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course.
Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.

Some fine day, you or someone close to you will be arrested and people may think you or someone close to you are guilty because of the arrest. That person may or may not be innocent, but you will pray that he or she is defended against the overwhelming forces of the government by an attorney with real courage.

​Actress Mindy Kaling tweeted the above photo and quote of her character––Kelly Kapoor––from the hit TV series The Office which was to serve as a response to a President Trump's claim of how smart he was.  “Official US Army Twitter account likes Mindy Kaling’s Trump-mocking tweet”  https://uk.blastingnews.com/politics/2018/01/official-us-army-twitter-account-likes-mindy-kalings-trump-mocking-tweet-002278731.html
 
In the book A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America, https://www.amazon.com/Very-Stable-Genius-Testing-America/dp/1984877496 a July 2017 meeting at the Pentagon at which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, among other senior advisors and generals, attempt to brief then President Trump on the current state and projection of military power.  Using lots of visual aids, the men briefed the President on US deployments, bases and embassies around the world, and the value of trade agreements in boosting America's national security.  Trump responded negatively to their approach.  "You're all losers. You don't know how to win anymore . . . you're a bunch of dopes and babies" the commander-in-chief told the meeting attendees.  This prompted Tillerson to refer to Trump as a "fucking moron.”  "Tillerson's Fury at Trump Required an Intervention From Pence,"  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/tillerson-s-fury-trump-required-intervention-pence-n806451.  To make sure the public realized he was a “stable genius,” Trump once tweeted, "...Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart."  President Trump: 'My two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart'  https://www.abc15.com/news/national/president-trump-my-two-greatest-assets-have-been-mental-stability-and-being-like-really-smart-
 
So do today’s Americans want a smart president?  The answer is no.  We want a common sense president.
 
In his book, The anti-intellectual presidency: The decline of presidential rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush., Elvin T. Lim, a Professor of Political Science, https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-anti-intellectual-presidency-9780195342642?cc=us&lang=en& draws on interviews with more than 40 presidential speechwriters to argue that the ever-increasing pressure for presidents to manage public opinion and perception has created a "pathology of vacuous rhetoric and imagery" where gesture and appearance matter more than accomplishment and fact. Lim tracks the campaign to simplify presidential discourse through presidential and speechwriting decisions made from the Truman to the present administration, explaining how and why presidents have embraced anti-intellectualism and vague platitudes as a public relations strategy.
 
Perhaps the most telling case is that good old standby, “common sense.” Everybody thinks he or she has it (in spite of doubts about certain relatives) and yet somehow it is also a remarkably rare qualification for high office. Lim points out that the phrase “common sense” or “commonsense” appear in the presidential papers a grand total of 11 times between George Washington and Woodrow Wilson. Since then, it has become far more, well, common -- showing up in presidential speeches some 1,600 times.
 
And while there was a gradual rise in the frequency of reference to common sense between Harding and Nixon, the expression really became a staple of presidential oratory over the past third of a century -- “even as (or perhaps because) the common sense has become increasingly divided in our polarized times,” writes Lim.
The common sense use of words avoids complex words or involved syntax so that the modern president can be assured of regular and stormy eruptions of applause from the public.  It is an interesting question to ask why are outbursts of applause in transcripts of presidential speeches? Lim explains that from the Carter presidency onward (and with a huge spike under Clinton) applause became, says Lim, “a litmus test of presidential accomplishment that successive White House press offices have deemed important enough to record for posterity.”