-----"The Democrats are so deluded by their own convoluted logic that they think the "right" to abortion stems from the right to privacy. John Roberts does not."
I have to kind of agree on this one point. He danced very effectively around this right to privacy question, and absolutely didn't refer to Blackmum's statements regarding privacy in RvW. But given how cagey he was, that doesn't mean anything really. But he sure was clever and funny. The democrats were laughing ... alot. When Thomas was nominated, no one was laughing. -----
One thing I don't get...
This "Right to privacy" is not outlined ANYWHERE in the constitution. It is clear that search and siezure is allowed, if done within certain constraints.
If WE THE PEOPLE decide that we want a broader right to privacy, what the hell happened to the old fashioned way of simply creating a constitutional amendment. In other words, follow the existing constitutional process.
For the SC to "decide that one exists", is not constitutional, pure and simple.
Not necessarily. The "Right to Privacy" is a term which can be applied to several of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, collectively. For instance, the government does not have the right to search your home unless they have reasonable grounds to conclude that you have committed a crime.
Furthermore, the ninth amendment maintains that the enumeration of certain rights by the constitution may not be used to deny other rights. In other words, just because the Constitution doesn't say that a right exists doesn't mean that the government has the authority to deny you those rights.
The issue at stake in the abortion debate is not whether there exists a right to privacy -- Judge Roberts correctly stated that all nine Supreme Court judges believed in one -- but whether that right to privacy includes the right to obtain an abortion. This is where the issues of originalism, self-determination and judicial supremacy come into play: The founding fathers defintely did not believe that a right to an abortion was a natural (supra-constitional) right when they passed the ninth amendment, so does that mean that a later generation can assert that abortion rights are a natural right? And if so, how is that decision made, through legislation, jurisprudence, or constitutional amendment? And if the federal government does decide that such a right does exist, does it have the authority to impose that decision on the states?