Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Special Report: Miers Tells Specter that She Supports Griswold v. Connecticut ("Right to Privacy")
Fox News | October 17, 2005

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...


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: griswold; griswoldvconnecticut; harrietmiers; miers; scotus; souterinaskirt; specter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-283 next last
To: AmericaUnited

Nice knee-jerk response.


141 posted on 10/17/2005 5:35:57 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I know WE would! LOL


142 posted on 10/17/2005 5:35:57 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Please say a prayer, and hold positive thoughts for Texas Cowboy...and Faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

"Have you actually read the Griswold decision in its original"

Yes, the whole thing. It was required reading, along with Roe v. Wade, when I took the Con Law course in law school. I'm surprised you are so willing to let the Federal judiciary be the judge of what is or is not a right of privacy.


143 posted on 10/17/2005 5:37:14 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

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.


144 posted on 10/17/2005 5:37:21 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (you call me a right wing extremist and a Rushbot like it's a bad thing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I think it was that RvW was "settled law", or something like that.

Seems like every judicial decision is settled law nowadays. Might as well disband the legislative branch. What are we paying them for?
145 posted on 10/17/2005 5:38:42 PM PDT by Kokojmudd (Trade the US Senate for the Iraqi Parliament!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

"Which privacy rights did they find that don't exist in the constitution? Do you argue that no privacy rights exist in the constitution?"


The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.


146 posted on 10/17/2005 5:38:48 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

Does this mean I will have to pay more money.


147 posted on 10/17/2005 5:38:54 PM PDT by fatima (I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

"adumbrated rights"

Is this a trick question?


148 posted on 10/17/2005 5:39:02 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
I'm surprised you are so willing to let the Federal judiciary be the judge of what is or is not a right of privacy.

Well then, who is? I mean other than Colt Arms. The bureaucracy? The legislature? Is there some de minimus right of privacy that you will admit to, or do you admit that the state of connecticut can snoop wheresoever it decides to pokes is nosey little nose? Is the right to be secure in your person, home and possesions not, in fact, a right of privacy?

149 posted on 10/17/2005 5:41:36 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
Is this a trick question?

Yeah, if you take it as such, it is.

150 posted on 10/17/2005 5:43:01 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
HOwever, that entire body of data informs me -zero- about her judicial philosophy

You are not being honest at all, in spite of trying to appear so. You state you've looked at all of the information and yet have 'ZERO' (your direct quote) information about Miers judicial philosophy.

How about this fact: I know for certain that you've seen posted here, information that stated Miers own direct judicial philosophy. And yet you claim to be ignorant. I know for certain that you've seen posted here, information of several people who have worked with Miers and stated what Miers judicial philosophy was. And yet you still claim to be ignorant. So please, save the "I'm an honest seeker of truth" routine.

151 posted on 10/17/2005 5:43:32 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
Yes as a matter of fact I have read it and know those Amendments well. The majority of the Amendments limit government power don't they
152 posted on 10/17/2005 5:44:03 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Yeppers...the only "troubling" thing he said was...that if the Republicans don't win in 2006 or 2008 or 2010, it wouldn't make that much of a difference...

I WINCED at that one...

He is all about the "lets be NON-partisan" and get stuff done.

RE: MIers....he wouldn't say...but he said that his 3 criteria for a SCOTUS justice in order are: 1. Integrity---that if there is even a whiff of a lack of integrity in the nominees past...gone.

2. Judicial philosophy...originalist, strict constructionalist, judical activist...? He believes in the Constitution as written, and that anything else should be handled by the legislative branch.

3. Life experience...he prefers someone who has "lived in the real world" and has had bad things happen, or whatever...he doesn't want someone who has spent his/her adult life in the insular world of the judiciary and doesn't know how real everyday Americans would feel about a decision he/she might make that would affect their lives.

If you want to know more..about other subjects let me know..but since this is a MIers thread, I will stop.


153 posted on 10/17/2005 5:44:13 PM PDT by Txsleuth (Please say a prayer, and hold positive thoughts for Texas Cowboy...and Faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Do you disagree with those findings?


154 posted on 10/17/2005 5:45:06 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

You are confusing results with how they are obtained. You don't like the fact that Connecticut passed a law you don't like. If you lived in Connecticut, your remedy would be to vote the suckers who passed the law out and change it. That's the way it should have worked. But, no, the SCOTUS stepped in. Now they get to decide all these things. That's very dangerous because it means the SCOTUS is now legislating from the bench. Even Bush claims he's against that.


155 posted on 10/17/2005 5:46:01 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: All

Specter: Miers expressed belief in constitutional right to privacy




Knight Ridder Newspapers


(KRT) - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that she believes there's a right to privacy in the Constitution, a basic underpinning of the Supreme Court's landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the panel chairman, said that during a nearly two-hour private meeting Monday, Miers also told him that she believed the court had properly decided a precedent-setting 1965 privacy case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the legal foundation that led to Roe v. Wade.

Miers also assured a Senate Democrat on Monday that she's never told anyone how she would rule on abortion rights.

"Nobody knows how I would rule on Roe v. Wade," Miers said, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Still, Schumer and other Democrats said Monday that they want to know more about a private teleconference call in which two of Miers' friends reportedly assured religious conservatives that she would vote to overturn the 1973 case that legalized abortion.

Schumer said it was possible that the Judiciary Committee would subpoena participants in the call. The key issue: whether the White House engineered a clandestine campaign to assure social conservatives that Miers would oppose abortion, while publicly insisting that it had no abortion litmus test in picking Miers.

Specter said committee staffers are investigating.

"If there was a telephone call where someone gave assurances about how she's going to vote in a case, you bet that's something we'd look into," Specter said. "Absolutely. It is not tolerable to have any commitments about how a nominee would vote on a case. Not tolerable."

"You can't have a campaign for a nominee based on whispers and winks," Schumer said.

Monday's skirmishing was set off by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund. He described a call among 13 members of "the Arlington Group," which he described as "an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups," on Oct. 3, the day President Bush nominated Miers.

During the call, James Dobson, founder of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, introduced two friends of Miers to speak about her, according to Fund.

White House political guru "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think," Dobson said, according to notes cited by Fund as taken during the call by one participant.

One participant asked whether the men thought Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"Absolutely," said U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of Texas.

"I agree with that," said Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, a longtime Miers companion, according to Fund.

The call came one day after Rove spoke at length with Dobson about Miers, assuring the influential conservative that Miers was acceptable. Dobson has said that Rove made no promise about how Miers would vote if confirmed for the court.

The White House said Monday that it didn't set up the second call.

"That was not a call organized by the White House, and as far as I've been able to learn, no one at the White House was involved on that call," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Miers told Schumer that she'd never discussed Roe v. Wade with Kinkeade or Hecht, Schumer said, but she refused to say whether she had ever discussed the issue with Rove.

Kinkeade declined to comment. In a statement read by his assistant, the judge said he "does not feel it is appropriate to have further discussion about Ms. Miers' nomination in public."

Hecht didn't respond to calls for comment.

Other participants also refused to comment, calling the teleconference a private call.

One social conservative familiar with the call said the two Texas judges were speculating about Miers' likely vote on abortion, not promising it.

"They felt she was pro-life. But they said they did not know for sure," said the conservative, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid rupturing relations with activists on the call.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a Miers ally and a Judiciary Committee member, opposed having the panel spend time examining the conference call. "I think there is going to be plenty of fodder for the committee to deal with without running down rabbit trails," Cornyn said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, also a Judiciary Committee member, voiced annoyance at some conservative activists' opposition to Miers' nomination.

"What bothers me is that loudmouths two weeks ago were saying that they had this conversation and that conversation. I see most of them wanting to be big shots and ... want to be more than they really are," Grassley said, adding that "religion shouldn't play a role" in choosing a Supreme Court justice.

156 posted on 10/17/2005 5:46:11 PM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Miers' constitutional philosophy? No one knows what it is. She doesn't even know what it is.

She's cramming with a Laurence Tribe hornbook for the next two weeks to try to find one.

157 posted on 10/17/2005 5:46:32 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: billbears

The one's I listed list specific rights.


158 posted on 10/17/2005 5:49:16 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

"Do you disagree with those findings?"

I do not.

I also belive that the right of privacy is older than the constitution and it lives in the constitution.


159 posted on 10/17/2005 5:50:35 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Are you done taking the Gipper's picture down, since there actually is a right to privacy in the Constitution?
160 posted on 10/17/2005 5:51:11 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 281-283 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson