Supreme Court opinions not private enough

WND ^ | Wednesday, December 03, 2003 | Ann Coulter

[nickcarraway]

ping

[nickcarraway]

ping

[tpaine]

--- the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke. The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine, saw off shotgun barrels or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise.
-AnnC-

---

free me wrote:
Ann is pointing out the the hypocripsy of the court in saying one has a right to "privacy" but only when it comes to abortion.
The court believes we don't have a right to privacy when it comes to sawed-off shotguns, drugs, etc.
In no way does Ann give an opinion as to wether she believes these activities are constitutional.
-FM-

---

She claims above that our right to privacy is a joke, and that she doesn't have the right to "euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise", nor the "right to manufacture methamphetamine, [or] saw off shotgun barrels".

[tpaine]

Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke.
The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine,
saw off shotgun barrels
or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise.
-AnnC-

---

Hmmm, I've always been of the opinion that it was perfectly Constitutional to make mind altering substances [like booze], for my private use.
[Granted, winemaking can be 'regulated', -- if I sell it]

The same goes for making a 'short' shotgun for home use. If it never leaves my house, what's the harm to society?

Who gave the government the power to 'regulate' the length of shotgun barrels, or make home remedies?


Naturally, "euthanizing the elderly, privately or otherwise", is murder, a criminal act. --- Just as is killing a viable baby..
-- But then Ann has never let a good line stand in her way of making what she sees as a witty point.

She is getting to be the ~joke~ , by trying to claim the government can prohibit guns, drugs, booze, or sexual privacy by simple decree.
Prohibitionism is not conservatism, Ann, -- its authoritarianism.
15 -tpaine-

---

jwalsh07 wrote: You're the joke Paine. A one joke johnny who actually believes that sodomy is an inalienable right worthy of Constitutional protection but believes that the right to life is simply a tenth amendment issue. But what's worse is the indignity you express when the same morons fudge on the second amendment. Live by judicial activism, die by judicial activism.

---

I value the privacy of my home, unlike some sodomy obsessed contol FReekers.

Natually, whenever the control fanatics of either left or right attack the privacy of my bathroom, bedroom, gunroom or bar-room, -- I get indignant.

Learn to deal with it, '07'..

[freedomcrusader]

Yep, the MA legislature should tell the court to go pound sand. Enough is enough.

Andrew Jackson once said:

"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."

Of course, Marshall was right, but I like Jackson's healthy disrespect of the Supreme Court. We could use a little of that right now.

[Plutarch]

Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.

All the liberal critics have tried and failed, but I, Plutarch, have found Ann Coulter to have a fact wrong!!! The quotation about bickering with a Lady about her price is not attributed to Winston Churchill, but to George Bernard Shaw.

Getting this attribution wrong completely undermines her arguments regarding the perfect tyranny of a hyperactive Judicial Branch.

A story is told about Bernard Shaw that he was sitting next to a woman at a dinner party and asked her: ‘Madam, if I gave you a million pounds, would you have sexual intercourse with me?’ After some thought, the woman said yes, she thought she would. ‘Would you do it for a fiver?’, Shaw then asked. ‘Sir!’ she exclaimed, ‘what kind of woman do you think I am?’ ‘I thought we had established that,’ said Shaw, ‘and we were merely haggling over the price.’

Source

George Bernard Shaw 1856–1950, Irish playwright and critic

[narses]

I pinge the Catholic list, you got a courtesy 'ping' as the poster of the article.

[cpforlife.org]

Great job Ann!!

If you see this, please read
THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT

[cpforlife.org]

This is not just "any" Pro-Life PING, It's an ANN COULTER PRO-LIFE PING!! Woo-Hoo!!

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

She's pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Mr. Silverback]

I value the privacy of my home, unlike some sodomy obsessed contol FReekers.

Realizing that endorsement of sodomy is bad for the country does not make one "sodomy obsessed," it makes one more concerned for the country than one is concerned about phantom bedroom cops. You know, the bedroom cops who are just sitting around eating donuts, waiting for a court to protect marriage so they can come rushing into our bedrooms and arrest us for improper shtupping procedures? Man, they give me nightmares.

I love how libertarian types jump up and down and pretend we're living in a tyranny, not because our courts threaten rights the Founders codified, but because those same courts haven't yet granted us rights the Founders never would have dreamed of giving anybody.

[Askel5]

=== Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke.


Save David Whoreowitz, perhaps.

[Askel5]

=== despite there being nothing anyplace in the Constitution vaguely hinting at abortion.


When Ann has the time, perhaps she'll take a peek at the 1970 Congressional Record and understand that then-Representative George Bush and the GOP's task force on "Earth Resources and Population" were more than broadly hinting.

[Askel5]

=== It was the same plan that hasn't worked for 30 years: Elect a Republican president,


By George, I think she's got it!

[Askel5]

=== In the past few years, federal courts have proclaimed a right to sodomy (not in the Constitution), a right to partial-birth abortion (not in the Constitution), a right not to have a Democratic governor recalled (not in the Constitution), a right not to gaze upon the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse (not in the Constitution), a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (not in the Constitution), and a ban on voluntary student prayers at high-school football games (not in the Constitution).



All of which kinda pale when you think about the "strict Constitutionalist" decision of our President to fund his federal science projects on "already-been-killed" excess manufacture human beings.

[Askel5]

=== Granted, one can imagine how a woman married to the likes of Anthony Lewis might long for the sanctuary of a same-sex union.


I think Ann should keep her more personal observations to herself.

[tpaine]

I value the privacy of my home, unlike some sodomy obsessed contol FReekers.

Natually, whenever the control fanatics of either left or right attack the privacy of my bathroom, bedroom, gunroom or bar-room, -- I get indignant.

Learn to deal with it..

Realizing that endorsement of sodomy is bad for the country does not make one "sodomy obsessed,"

But ~some~ FReekers are so obsessed, as I specified above. Are you one?

it makes one more concerned for the country than one is concerned about phantom bedroom cops. You know, the bedroom cops who are just sitting around eating donuts, waiting for a court to protect marriage so they can come rushing into our bedrooms and arrest us for improper shtupping procedures? Man, they give me nightmares.

Yes, I can see you have an overactive imagination. Bad symptom. Sleep deprivation can lead to delusions, I've heard.

I love how libertarian types jump up and down and pretend we're living in a tyranny, not because our courts threaten rights the Founders codified, but because those same courts haven't yet granted us rights the Founders never would have dreamed of giving anybody.

I love how anti-liberty types jump to conclusions about libertarians, and pretend they've said things they never have.
Amusingly delusional.