Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
Yes. Doesn't everybody? (Except for the Pope and other extremely strict Catholics?)
Again you're missing the point: The distinction between the court's conclusion, and the reasoning leading to that conclusion.
It's a distinction with a difference. Even Chuckie Cheese Schumer realizes that, as reflected in the question Schumer usually asks federal court nominees. Again:
Do you agree with the holding [in Griswold]? Do you agree with the outcome, but get there in a different way? [emphasis mine]
But inexplicably Schumer didn't ask that question of Roberts.
I personally interpret Roberts's comments to Kohl re Griswold as a subtle way to show that his judicial opinions would not be unduly adherent to Catholic doctrine.
But it's clear to me you don't want to get the point, so I give up.
That is surveillance.
""They can sit outside his house, though."
---
That is surveillance.
-
That is surveillance, I agree. But I think we have different expectation of privacy inside our houses versus outside on the street.
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.