[ClearCase_guy]

She has stated that the Supreme Court 'has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion' and that 'the law is settled in that regard.'"

[snip]

That is precisely the stance that an appeals-court judge has to take, and it says nothing about how that judge would rule if she were on the Supreme Court.

It makes me damn nervous. I'd be happier with a judge who said "Roe is an abomination. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. That ruling was made up for political purposes by activist judges."

Anyone who said that would have my support. This woman does not have my support.

[mware]

I would like that too but as in all other candidates for SC I think she should hold to tradition and state that she can not make any statement since she may be asked to rule on the issue in the future.

Hey it worked for Ginsburg.

[minus_273]

you are right, but saying "There is no right to privacy in the Constitution" even though it is true makes ignorant masses really nervous and it makes for good moveon.org ad soundbites. I like to joke that the right to an abortion is right under the right to privacy in the bill of rights ... and many people dont get it.

[Maceman]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. That ruling was made up for political purposes by activist judges."

How is there NOT a right to privacy?

How can you possibly imagine that such a right is not "self-evident" within the meaning of that term in the Declaration of Independence?

How can a free society exist where the government does not recognize such a right?

What do you think the Ninth Amendment means?

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

I'll be interested in knowing what you think about why the founders included that amendment in the Bill of Rights, and what meaning you think it could possibly have other than we have other unenumerated rights.

What support do you have for your apparent position that our Consitutional rights are limited to those explicitly enumerated in that document?

Opposition to Roe v. Wade does not require the erroneous argument that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.

The ninth amendment clearly suggest that there is one, and it is impossible to imagine a truly free society that does not recognize such a right.

Moreover, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments clearly presume the right to individual privacy

The fact is that the right to privacy is irrelevant to the abortion question. And that is the principal error of Roe v. Wade. A better use for the right to privacy argument would be to limit the federal government's powers to impose the onerous and intrusive reporting requirements of the Income Tax system.

I think the right to privacy would be a natural argument to overturn the constitutionality of the IRS regulations as they are written. (Yes, I accept that for better or worse the 16th Amendment allows the government to collect taxes on incomes. But it does not automatically follow that implementation of that power entitles the government to trample our privacy rights in the process.)

[nonsporting]

She has stated that the Supreme Court 'has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion' and that 'the law is settled in that regard.'"

So she firmly believes that the Constitution is "what the Supreme Court says it is."

This makes me nervous, too. The Constitution is what it is, not what some august body may happen to say it is. Otherwise, why have a written Constitution? (With credit to Sobran).