Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
keyword: midlifecrisis
Though to be fair, she makes some better arguments in this piece.
Yup--good thing that's not what AC said. Your argument that a justice doesn't need anything other than a bit of common sense is at least as silly, though. "Common sense" is a far cry from enough.
Superb point. The ability to write mash notes to your boss, and being "personally opposed to abortion," just like Mario Cuomo and Tom Daschle, do not qualify one to be a Supreme Court Justice.
just a question if you have time...
Did Griswold outlaw use of contraceptives in the home or the sale of contraceptives? Maybe that's still too much for some but didn't the duly elected representatives vote that law into place? If the people's representatives voted for a law banning sale of contraceptives in CT, why is that bad--remember, this is supposedly how republican government works.
OTOH a law prohibiting their use in private home is effectively unenforceable
Maybe this "Democracy" stuff isn't such a good idea huh Ann?
What "folks" ?
If you're referring to the FR poll, that's ludicrously worded:
"After a couple of weeks of research and intense debate, have any minds been changed? Do you approve of the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?"
Which is the question we're supposed respond to? The first or the second?
That poll needs re-wording and re-starting -- big time.
I have an awesome idea! Can we compile a ping-list of the folks who say this kind of crazy stuff, so that after Miers's confirmation we can ping the lot of them whenever she makes a liberal/stupid/activist decision?
From Griswald: "What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."
* * *
There is also nothing in the Constitution that excepts pornagraphy from the right to free speech and to a free press as guaranteed by the First Amendment, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that pornagraphy is not protected by the First Amendment if it violates community standards (which are not mentioned in the Constitution). Nor are there any restrictions in the First Amendment to the right to peacefully assemble, yet the Court has ruled that it has the right to prohibit citizens from peacefully assembling in front of the Supreme Court Building and has ruled that govenrment can generally regulate the time, place, and manner of speach and assembly even though the Constitution contains no such qualification upon First Amendment Rights. In view of your support of the dissent in "Griswald" do you agree with the Court's decisions restricting First Amendment rights with respect to pornagraphy and peaceful assembly even though the Constitution contains no such qualification?
Actually Specter's statement is a polite way of saying she's a liar without saying it. It doesn't retract what he said, it just says "we'll accept your new version about what you said". What almost certainly appears to have happened with Specter, and what seems to have happened with Schumer earlier regarding Griswold, is that she forgot what she was told to say during her cramming sessions. She's woefully unprepared (or just plain clueless) regarding even basic Constitutional questions. Also, after reading her responses to the Senate questionnaire, the White House needs to drop the "she's a detail-oriented person" talking point.
Define "privacy." When you finally give up, you'll understand why there is no right to "privacy".
Maybe this "1st Amendment" stuff isn't such a good idea huh MNJohnnie?
You would think by now that the "ditsy diva of divisive discourse" would have learned that the United States of America is a representative constitutional republic.
democracy as in mob rule, Ann?
Well, now I CAN agree with Specter afterall!
I know, I know, it probably smacks of "elitism" but your arguments would be much more persuasive if you paid attention to little things like spelling and grammar and, well, logic.
Obviously, you disagree with her, but where you go from there, I can't really comprehend.
Pride goeth before a fall. Not my wisdom. However, it does apply to those who think that their influence is increased by endlessly posting anti Miers tirades from an incestuous group of writers for a handful of publications whose subscriptions overlap and are used as a springboard to demand that the President of the United States forgo his constitutional right to choose a Supreme Court nominee. All the while trumpeting that their concern is for the preservation of that same constitution. No hearings or vote for Harriet Miers are approved of by this bunch of self appointed keepers of the constitutional flame. Only THEIR candidate is worthy of consideration and Georg Bush should have known that he needed to have deferred to them. Somehow, he seems to have gotten the idea that he is President of the United States of America.
You'd think the President might have figured that out as well. Oh wait....given recent events, I take that back!
Yeah! His civil rights is bein' violated! That's what! This's... this's like SELMA, THIS's!
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.