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...
Because of the 14th, the rights afforded under the Constitution constrain the powers of the state. They constitute powers withheld by the people.
I'm not sure of Justice Roberts. Not at all.
If Miers supports Griswold folks, this gal is another SDO.
Would you say the same thing of Dick Cheney who led the effort to pick a Veep.
There was no conflict of interest here,,GWB knew the deal here.
"do people actually have a problem with Griswold v. Connecticut, which upheld a married couple's right to use contraception?"
Well, it is the case relied on in Roe v. Wade I believe.
The Miers defenders are going to have to do some interesting contortions to defend this one.
Maybe they will begin recycling lib talking points from the Breyer nomination, although Breyer is probably to the right of Miers.
ping
If they are illegal and the state has probable cause to think the law is being violated, yes.
"Sink you are fighting a losing battle, these people dont give a damn about faCTS"
What a load of BS.
State Supreme Ct upheld the law. It went to U.S. Supreme Court and was decided in 1965.
In the case the Court found a right to privacy that inhered in the marital relationship. The constitutional foundation of the decision was "emanations from penumbras" of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. The state law was struck down.
Stewart's dissent in the case is a classic.
Marriage is a contract entered into under the laws of a state, based on the state's police power. That is a reserved right of the state under the 10th amendment. This law had been on the books for 86 years and evidently no one thought it violated the constitution before Planned Parenthood challenged it. Also, the question arises, if there is a right to privacy in the marital bedroom, what all might that entail?
It was not long before the new-found right to privacy was used to protect abortion rights for unmarried women: Roe v. Wade, 1973.
Griswold is considered by many originalists as a prime example of judicial activism. I believe Bork says as much in Tempting, though I confess I don't have the book in front of me at the moment.
I resemble "those people," having come over here for a brief visit from the dark side, and I must say, I am personally very interesting in obtaining facts. LEt me say at the outset that I feel the "Ginsberg Rule" precules chance of obtaining much insight via hearings with no moe, but hearing will represent the sum extent of what we will learn, unless we are given more than hearings (yesh, a simple truism, I know, pedantic).
FReeper CharlesWayneCT was kind enough to direct me to a site that aims to collect the pro and con arguments. The link is:
http://www.rightsideredux.com/projects/miers/procon.htm#top
I have visited that site to obtain facts regarding Ms. Miers. I learned of her career, her faith (which is irrelevant to a serious analysis of her bona fides for the SCOTUS seat), her ABA activity, I've read a number of her writings (TX Bar Journal - as well as an appellate brief with multiple authors, one of which is her), justification of "stealth" because of the gang of 14 (I don't se how this is a qualifier that makes her great - it seems to be a qualifier that would water down her conservatism), the mere fact that GWB has nominated her makes it a good pick, the fact that GWB has nominated other good judges (sheds no light on her - only buttresses the "trust me" argument), she is WH counsel (can you imagine Vince Foster on SCOTUS? Sideline comment, sorry), that she comes from a non-judge background (a BIG plus in my book), she went to SMU (one year ahead of Laura Bush), she has an attention to detail, she''s personable, she is charitable, etc. etc.
I encourage others to visit as well, it is a good list of information. HOwever, that entire body of data informs me -zero- about her judicial philosophy, and oly permits an assumption of a certain degree of personal competence because her work (except for the Bar Journal pieces) was the work product of a team. It is not an expression of her individual skills, or beliefs.
Now, kind sir, I do give a damn about facts, and if you have some, please send them my way. I thank you in advance.
"If Miers supports Griswold folks, this gal is another SDO."
Exactly right. Every snippet of information I learn about this FOB suggests to me she is not, well, not in the mold of Scalia and Thomas as Bush promised when he needed my vote. Now that he no longer needs my vote (as many here have reminded us he isn't running again) he's free to do whatever he wants. And he wants us to approve of Harriet Miers, a nobody with a nothing resume from Texas. Thanks George. Like father, like son. I guess the old adage is still good advice.
This is the worst argument about the powers of the state I have ever read on any forum. Ever. It is not where any Christian conservative would start his argument, nor a libertarian conservative either.
Somehow, I think that marriage eminates from something far more original and primitive than with the chief of police of the State of Connecticut.
main attack seems to be:
1) This is the same as what Roberts stated in his hearings.
It isn't. Folks check post #13 for a quick summation of the difference.
2) It comes from Specter.
Specter is many things, but while I wouldn't say his word is Golden I certainly am not inclined to believe he'd lie about something of this magnitude either. It's reasonable to wait for "clarification" about this conversation between the two, but to denounce it as unbelieveable on the basis it came form Specter is not reasonable at all. If from Durbin, then, yes.
If she did say this s represented on FOX Brownback, Coburn et al. will not be pleased.
I know some people think differently, but I think you can not have a huge problem with Griswold, but have one with Roe. True, Griswold might have started the slippery slope to Roe, but I really don't think it was "making law" to say the ninth amendment protects a right for a married couple to have privacy in their use of contraceptives. The constitution may very well protect that. I am just saying it is not that much of stretch (while it may be a small one). However, to extend the privacy issue to say the 9th amendment protects abortions, well that is absurd, crazy, and ridiculous. I don't think you can blame Grisold so much for Roe, because really, any 5 justices can take a past decision and stretch it sooo far as to what that decision really said to incorporate a new right like Roe did. I think a line can be drawn between the two. You can agree with Griswold and still be a strong vote to overturn Roe. I think Roberts fits this scenario. Miers, who the hell knows.
I have my wading boots on up yo my shoulder blades with some of the sh-- you guys have been putting out.
both of these decisions - Griswold and Lawrence - were careful setups by the left. The underlying laws - in one case outlawing contraception between consenting adults, and in the other outlawing certain sex practices between consenting adults, should have been taken off the books. leaving them there allowed the left to setup cases to use the judiciary to toss them, and set precedents for a whole host of other "privacy" cases - Roe, and soon for full gay marriage.
And it is the Senate's role to consent to his nomination. Ultimately, his choice will be on the Court whether it's Myers or someone else. I hope it's someone else.
The issue here is that "privacy" in terms of Con law was invented by the Supreme Court to protect supposed sexual freedom. That "privacy" implies the liberty to do anything one wants so long as it has something to do with sex means that upholding the Constitutionally-nonexistent "right to privacy" found in Griswold results in the protection of abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, and under the same philosophy, bestiality and pedophilia. The Court deals with "principles" or philosophies of interpretation rather than circumstances in responding to precedent, so saying that the "privacy" to contracept in marriage is different than "privacy" for a same-sex married couple to have non-procreative sex is not necessarily applicable to this situation. I do agree that abortion is an entirely unrelated issue, since it involves an innocent third party, but the fact is that it (according to the USSC) involves the right to privacy of childless sex, and is now forever tied to the Griswold precedent and the concept of "privacy" in general.
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.