Replies

As a side issue: Dr. Krauthammer mentioned Roe v. Wade. When you think about it, that decision looks more and more fishy as time goes on. The majority decision in Roe v. Wade claimed to find a right to privacy in the Constitution. Over the last forty years, Americans' right to privacy - most glaringly, financial privacy - have been tromped on by FedGov with the compliance of the Supreme Court. In the context of subsequent jurisprudence, Roe's decision looks a lot like an ad-hoc rescue instead of a genuine decision relied upon as precedent.

Make me wonder: what if a pro-life group challenged Roe on the grounds of later hypocrisy in re. the right to privacy, using a list of subsequent Supreme Court decisions that backed up FedGov when it invaded citizens' privacy in any other matter?

What you have discovered is that the Supreme Court is nothing but an example of any court ruling dependent upon the current fervor of the Democratic Party (or so it seems).

What you and many other have finally understood is that the Courts, including the Supreme Court, are political and have no reality in determining the actual Constitution as written.

That is a major problem for the survival of our Country! If this continues along the same lines as it has been, it will only be up to the people to correct the problem. Either we are a nation of laws (not political laws established by the current prevailing party) or we are NOT! When the laws are established by the politically active and are not based on the Constitution, we are all in trouble. It only gets worse when the Supreme Court disregards constitutionality!

Only time will tell...

"Over the last forty years, Americans' right to privacy - most glaringly, financial privacy - have been tromped on by FedGov with the compliance of the Supreme Court"

I have now long believed that we need a Privacy for Individuals Amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately since the Constitution matters little these days, it wouldn't really help.

Roe's decision looks a lot like an ad-hoc rescue instead of a genuine decision relied upon as precedent.

It does look like that. But actually a precedent for Roe was slyly established several years earlier in Griswold v Connecticut.

Griswold was the camel's nose under the tent in establishing the highly particularized "right to privacy" --you know, that right that isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution?

Griswold was a case manufactured by the Left. A couple of fake plaintiffs were engaged to get themselves in trouble with an obscure law in CT, banning sale of certain "birth control" products. CT's birth control law was never enforced. The phony plaintiffs basically had to demand the attention of law enforcement to their illicit act, in order to create this tailor-made case.

(The creation of phony plaintiffs is one of the Left's favorite tactics to force new judge-created law -- it was also used in the Scopes "Monkey Trial" in TN, the Lawrence v Texas case that was used to strike down allstates' laws against homosexual behavior, and in Roe v Wade itself. As most of us know, the original Roe, Norma McCorvey, has admitted she was a fake plaintiff.)

So it was Griswold in which SCOTUS first found its imaginary right-to-privacy in the Constitution.

Of course the court has never found a right to privacy that extends to your personal finances. FedGov has unlimited power to trample your privacy in any way that its tool, the IRS, wishes.