Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
And that a "right to privacy" exists in the Constitution...
Nothing more yet...
So Bush's legacy will be staffing the Supreme Court with second-rate justices.
Didn't Roberts also say that a right to privacy is in the constitution?
I think it was that RvW was "settled law", or something like that.
I don't think he went as far as to endorse Griswold.
A right to privacy does exist in the constitution, it just doesnt give a mother the right to kill her child.
So now we've got Snarlin' Arlen reporting something he thinks Aunt Harriet told him, which Schmucky Schumer said she didn't tell him, which if true would contradict what others have said (they were told she'd overturn Roe v. Wade, based partly on Griswold).
Another Bush Jr. Megaboof.
Back to square one, George - this time see if you can do it right, ok? Your shoeshine lady just isn't cutting it.
Roberts was asked to locate the right to privacy in the Constitution. He quoted parts of the Bill of Rights pertaining to military occupations and invasions of citizens' homes. Does the right to privacy extend beyond those contexts? Roberts offered one addition: "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception." Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pressed him about the extension of contraceptive rights to unmarried people. "I don't have any quarrel with that conclusion," he allowed. What about Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case that interpreted Griswold to bar prosecution of private sex between consenting adults? Roberts ducked the question, citing "the difference between the issue that was presented in Griswold and its ramifications." In other words, any claim of privacy beyond the specific "issue" in Griswold—the right to marital contraception—is a "ramification" Roberts might reconsider.
Who is Bush jr.?
If true, there's the ball game. Turn out the lights and someone remember take the picture of the Gipper down and store it away. Twenty-five years of effort wasted on a quota crony.
Uh oh.
Roberts said that the right to privacy exists thorugh the "liberty" clause found in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. This is the same view of Justice Thomas. Griswold is the decision that found that the right exists in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights. that was the view of Douglas and most liberal justices. If this report is true, Miers is no Scalia or Thomas.
There are a number of privacy rights in the Constitution -- the 1st 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, for starters. Griswold was a bad case, assembled on a fraudulent factual basis, and with crippled judicial descendants.
But this fact-free post offers nothing real on the subject of Miers' views on that subject.
Congressman Billybob
This kind of stuff is out of my league....could you break it down for me and all of us...if Miers supports Griswold....what does that mean.
Hmm, OK... do people actually have a problem with Griswold v. Connecticut, which upheld a married couple's right to use contraception?
This however is different. Most people agree with the results of Griswold, but that doesn't mean it was the right of the judges to decide the issue.
What do you mean uh oh..
Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Should be available shortly - was introduced as a late-breaking newsbite by Brian Williams at the bottom of the hour. Elaboration no doubt forthcoming this evening.
Not that I'm on the edge of my seat to see what that dimbulb ass#%$@ Specter has to say. I'm going to see Wallace & Gromit - they're better for the country, and my blood pressure, than politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.