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...
Agreed. And I like you synopsis. But even after you decide to help the drunk, you can still stop and move on.
My main argument is with those who say life begins at conception. IF it does, then if given a hostile environment, self induced, then the same thing as abortion has occurred. It's a chemical procedure vs a medical procedure. Could be why they term the pill and some other methods "abortifacient".
Roberts will be one of the all-time greats. You guys said the EXACT same thing about Thomas years ago ('don't know much about him,' not a great pick, etc.) It's amazing how Thomas "has grown" as a Justice since Bush '41's "disastrous" pick.
Miers DID NOT tell Specter she supported Griswold, as Specter claimed yesterday.
Specter has had to make an "embarrassing" retraction of this claim, according to ABC radio news (9 am EDT, Tuesday October 18).
ABC News is reporting that Specter now says he "misunderstood" Harriet Miers re Griswold in their private meeting yesterday -- which I predicted here on this thread yesterday.
To Torie and nwrep: Roberts also did NOT make a statement of support for Griswold at his confirmation hearings. Like Specter, you have misunderstood Roberts's response.
See Byron York's reporting and analysis of Roberts's response to Schumer regarding Griswold.
There's a lot of disinformation being put out about Miers.
Maybe this is in another thread, but this morning on FoxNews I heard a blurb where they said that Specter had come back out and said he misspoke about the Miers saying there was a "right to privacy" -- sounded like he did overstate the degree of her support for that "right".
When this happened to Roberts, we were all pretty upset with the Senator.
See post 283.
Also here is a published report that Specter has retracted his claim:
[Miers's] conversation with Specter led to a politically awkward moment Monday. Specter told reporters that beyond stating that the constitution includes a right to privacy, Miers had voiced support for two privacy-related rulings, regarding contraceptives, handed down a generation ago.But former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who is shepherding Miers' nomination, said in a telephone interview that the Pennsylvania Republican was mistaken about one of them - the so-called Griswold case involving the use of contraceptives by married couples.
"When asked about the Griswold case, Harriet Miers said what she has consistently said all along, and that is ... she is not commenting on specific cases," Coats said.
An aide to Specter, William Reynolds, subsequently issued a statement saying the senator "accepts Ms. Miers' statement that he misunderstood what she said."
There's enough disinformation and misinformation out there about Miers, it's a disservice to FReepers trying to search out the truth if this thread's title remains uncorrected.
[Schumer] "And on the Griswold case and the right to privacy there, you said, in reference to Sen. Kohl's question, 'I agree with the Griswold Court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and the availability of that. The Court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right in that case in the liberty interests protected under the due process clause.' That is your accurate view?"
[Roberts] "Yes, sir," Roberts said.
No. Parse it:
1. [Schumer] "And on the Griswold case and the right to privacy there, you said, in reference to Sen. Kohl's question, 'I agree with the Griswold Court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and the availability of that.'" [emphasis mine]
Roberts said he agreed with the Court's conclusion, not with its legal reasoning to get TO that conclusion. There's a difference.
2. [Schumer again] "The Court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right in that case in the liberty interests protected under the due process clause. That is your accurate view?"[Roberts] "Yes, sir," Roberts said.
Roberts has only agreed that the Court has done what Schumer says it has done. That doesn't mean he agrees with it.
That's York's interpretation, as far as I understand him. And it's mine too.
A right to privacy does exist in the Constitution.
It does not extend to abortion.
Roe distorted and bent the Constitutional right to privacy and used it as an excuse to uphold legislation the Court wanted to see upheld.
Judicial activism at its worst.
John Roberts also stated there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
As for Roberts he's too smart by half. His view was 'nunanced', as you might say. Not that it makes me feel any better about Roberts mind ya.
nuanced dumdum
But wait...Meir did not say anything of the kind to the Scottish Senator. He has now backed off, apologized (in his manner) and said he had it exactly wrong.
That means he agreed with the conclusion, not that he agreed that the court concluded. Come on, Roberts wasn't doing a Clinton. Give it a rest.
===========================================================
A generalization does not an argument make. I supported Thomas. Exactly which "guys" are you talking about? I was conservative when being conservative wasn't cool. Try being a political (or cultural) conservative in the early 70's, the 80's, the Clinton 90's. Try being a conservative, and standing for your views on a secular University and College.
The score still stands at about 9 liberals to 3 conservatives since the 60's appointed by GOP Presidents. The same President who appointed Thomas also appointed Souter. So, I guess if "W" hits 50% (assuming that Roberts works out), you're content with the results.
I'll state again what I've said before: After Thomas and Scalia depart, THERE WILL BE NO conservative intellectual on the court in about 10 to 15 years time, and Miers stands to be gone as well. Bush's appointment must stand the test of time 15-20 years from now, not just during his term.
I highly respect this President, but he was poorly served by his advisors (particularly Miers), and he punted these two nominations. Long after Iraqi's are fighting inter-tribal battles again (or Iraq becomes the new, rising democratic merchant power in the Middle East - take your pick), what will be remembered about Bush are his SCOTUS and other Federal court nominations. It's the battle ground that the American Left has staked out and owned, and it's the battle ground upon which this Constitutional Republic will rise or fall. The future that the left and their judges see for this country is nothing like that which the founders first established. Against that, Bush punted.
SFS
Thomas was ROUTINELY derided as too inexperienced, a "lightweight," an "affirmative action hire." I well remember the arguments. It's absolutely hysterical now to see all the people heralding him as a legal genius (I think he's above average, but when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, he's at the top---but again, I don't think that takes an IQ of 800).
There's no convincing you. I, for one, will wait for the hearings, but I NEVER will be comfortable with a full roster of eggheads on the court.
The same place the right to own private property is.
Privacy of ownership, the right not to have one's property seized by the government (though Kelo has issued a repugnant challenge to this right) is far different from the "privacy" to do absolutely anything one wants. "Privacy" as established in Griswold refers to sexual relationships and to the life or death of the unborn. Since people are not property, the right to private property is non-applicable here. The post-Griswold sort of "privacy" is nowhere included in the Constitution, and has manifested itself in ways that openly violate our founding document.
Bump.
Tell Byron York to give it a rest, then, too.
Choosing one's words carefully, as Roberts did, doesn't necessarily make one "a Clinton."
Of course Roberts agrees with the court's conclusion that there is such a thing as "marital privacy." That's a no-brainer.
But you've failed to recognize the distinction between agreeing with a wished-for outcome, i.e. "conclusion" of a court case --as Roberts clearly did with Griswold-- and agreeing with the court's reasoning to get to that conclusion --which Roberts did not do.
York brilliantly points out that Schumer did NOT ask Roberts a question re Griswold that would've "ma[d]e clear what questions he was actually answering and what he was not."
Schumer normally DOES ask nominees a question on Griswold that teases out the distinction between conclusion and reasoning. Here's the usual Schumer question re Griswold:
Do you agree with the holding [in Griswold]? Do you agree with the outcome, but get there in a different way?
But as York shows, Schumer was off his game that day. He did NOT ask ROBERTS that question. Here instead is what Schumer asked:
"And on the Griswold case and the right to privacy there, you said, in reference to Sen. Kohl's question, 'I agree with the Griswold Court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and the availability of that. The Court, since Griswold, has grounded the privacy right in that case in the liberty interests protected under the due process clause.' That is your accurate view?"
To which Roberts answered, simply, "Yes."
No indication there whatsoever that Roberts agreed with the court's reasoning re Griswold.
Roberts agrees that the marital right of privacy extends to contraception.
And Roberts agrees that it should.
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.