HEALTH CARE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL PER GRISWOLD V CONN. (IRONY ALERT)

Vanity | 3/24/10 | Vanity

[P-Marlowe]

Do we not already have the “liberty” to TRY to preserve our individual privacy?

Where in the constitution does the Federal Government have the authority to take it away?

[Mach9]

Of course the govt. has no authority to usurp privacy; but that would be because the powers of the federal government are thankfully (or were thankfully) LIMITED by the Constitution. But it can usurp “rights” that it, rather than nature’s laws and nature’s God, granted.

[P-Marlowe]

I agree with one of the justices who claimed it was a “silly” decision.

No, the Justice called the Law they overturned a "silly law".

I don't think you will find any Supreme Court Justice who has ever called another Justice's decision "silly". I just don't think that would happen.

[Mach9]

You’re right, I see. But you probably also noticed that he also saw it as constitutional. They’re normally more politic than to call another justice or his prose “silly.” But White didn’t hold back much when commenting on Roe—”raw judicial power” is pretty pungent.

[P-Marlowe]

But you probably also noticed that he also saw it as constitutional.

It was a wobbler. I think White fell on the wrong side of the issue on that one, but then he had just come off a series of decisions that had robbed every American of most of the Liberty that our founders had fought so hard to give us. At that time the Courts were rubber stamping just about every law that came out of Congress based on the alleged plenary powers of congress under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

This law was so minor compared to some of the Congressional laws which had limited our freedoms (indeed this law was not even being enforced in Connecticut), it was just used as a ruse to push for this "right of privacy" that Douglas was determined to later use to give him the authority to overturn abortion restrictions (which are clearly NOT silly laws).

That is why it would be so delicious to use Griswold to overturn this Health Care monstrosity.

If the ACLU protected the second amendment right as vigorously as they have this alleged right to an abortion, gun ownership would be mandatory.

[Forest Keeper]

I don't think you will find any Supreme Court Justice who has ever called another Justice's decision "silly". I just don't think that would happen.

What about 'DA MAN? :) From 60 Minutes Interview with Justice Scalia:

He's one of the best writers on the panel, known for a bold and colorful style. He told Stahl he has to work at it - that it doesn't come easy.

He some times quotes Cole Porter, and references Greek tragedies. Scalia says he does it because, "It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it."

But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision "sheer applesauce."

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

"How about, 'This opinion is not to be taken seriously.' He wrote that about Justice O'Connor," Ginsburg points out. "He's rather mild I think in the adjectives that he uses for me. But you can take every one of those words, run his opinions and you'll see that he, all of us are implausible when we disagree with him."

The man tells it like it is. That's why I love him. :)

[P-Marlowe]

Ginsburg has also been the target of some of Scalia's zingers: he called one of her opinions "absurd," another "implausible speculation," and another "self-righteous."

But notice he cleverly avoided calling her opinions "silly" :-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

And thank you for giving me the heads up, dearest sister in Christ!

Griswold clearly should be used in arguing that the Health Care Act is unconstitutional. Either the Supremes stand by the Griswold "right" to be left alone or they weaken Griswold and Roe along with it since it stands on it.

[ducdriver]

Excellent points. Someone pointed out (Tom Roeser, perhaps) that insurance is not a right, but a good. It’s a good thing to be insured against disasters of all kinds, including health disasters. This, unfortunately, is not what the “health care” bill is all about.

[DBeers]

Great Post -thank you!

I was thinking alomg similar lines and posted here:

Any Legal Scholars? Abortion & Healthcare Reform are legally incongruent?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2481482/posts

[DBeers]

I read in some emanation or penumbra that Obama is an asshat!

I am shocked! How dare you question the "one" -the great telepromptered mouthpiece of hope and change... Katie Courick would not be amused...

/end sarcasm

[Still Thinking]

Katie Courick would not be amused...

Now I KNOW I'm on the right track!

[Weirdad]

I would bet that Joseph Farah noticed your post (though he did not apply it or articulate the issues optimally in his editorial -- doubt he wants those articles to be too long)...

---

BETWEEN THE LINES
Roe v. Obama, Pelosi, Reid et al.
Exclusive: Joseph Farah applies abortion 'privacy' argument to nationalized health care
--WND (3/32/2010)

---

[P-Marlowe]

I would bet that Joseph Farah noticed your post

It's possible, but my point was that we stay away from Roe and concentrate on the holding in Griswold. Farah must have missed that message.

Roe is based on Griswold, but is a bastardization of the holding. Griswold stands for the proposition that dealings between a doctor and patient re: healthcare are confidential and under the protection of the privacy right enunciated in Griswold and therefore the government has no business getting involved in those decisions.

Whether or not a abortion qualifies as healthcare is a horse of a different color.

[DBeers]

An interesting thought I had:

As per our Constitution, unlike health care, a Legal Defense is a specifically an identified right -even, as has been held, for non citizens.

Now, if one compares and constrasts how this established and specifically identified right is handled, has been handled, and codified into law and practice one should easily be able to see just how far this newly derived right of health care is overstepping by its very nature...

IF this supposed right has been there all along then where has it been hiding in regard to law and common practice? Further, IF it is deemed a right THEN why the disparity between how a legal defense has commonly been afforded and how health care is now afforded under this new law?

In my opinion, the health care reform law is comparable to requiring citizens to purchase an insurance policy for potential legal problems -in essence maintaining a law firm on a contingency basis -all this is a right? How can a right be mandatory?

[Matchett-PI]

"..They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

Exactly. bttt