"Youse guys are gonna LOVE this Harriet! Trust Me!
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?
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.
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.
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
Hmm, OK... do people actually have a problem with Griswold v. Connecticut, which upheld a married couple's right to use contraception?
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.
I can see it now. Because it is not explicit in the constitution, it does not exist in the constitution.
There were many facts of life, liberty and the pursuit of justices which were "understood". There were words which had meaning and did not have to be enumerated.
ie. Marriage is based on "contract law" and is older than the bible. One did not engage in "contract law" with queers.
A man had to have a son (ie; the 1st commandment, "go forth, be fruitful and multiply!") or daughters for heirs. This was to preserve the family, the clan and the tribe.
Privacy may be an interpretation "according to Griswold decision", but other laws such as unlawful seaches, illegal quartering of troops, illegal to witness against oneself all lead to the same direction and conclusion.
The real question concerning abortion is not the legality. (That imo is a personal matter.) The real issue is whether it is a federal issue and whether tax money can be used to support it. If the 1st part is no, then the 2nd part is irrelevant.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The above amendments limit the authority of the Federal government. Abortion is something for the states or the provinces thereof to consider (IMO).
I heard Brian Wilson report that....but, didn't he go on to say that Schumer, who also interviewed her, did NOT say she said that?
Just a probably non relative point...but, maybe she DID tell Schumer that and he didn't want to public...so that she would get confirmed w/o that coming out??
"Youse guys are gonna LOVE this Harriet! Trust Me!
I heard that too.
well, this answers the "constructionism" question... as well as the "has she read the Constitution?" question.
Regardless of what one thinks about "privacy" vis-a-vis the government or the circumstances of the Griswold case, the "rights" cited were not enumerated in the Constitution, and the decision was incorrect.
I trust Specter about as far as I trust slick Willie.
Slow Joe Biden said that Thomas said the same thing, in hearings. The link is on bench memos a month or two back. IOW this tells us nothing.
"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. ... The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Douglas joined by many others