"Youse guys are gonna LOVE this Harriet!"
LOL! Classic...
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...
Well, the power of constitutional review is a power we gave the SC in the constitution. You don't like that power, fine, ammend the constitution. I think it is about right. Some of the results we may disagree with, but the principal of striking down unconstitional laws. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
"Miers' constitutional philosophy? No one knows what it is. She doesn't even know what it is."
The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. And it seems increasingly likely old Harriet, like O'Connor, will come down wherever the wind blows her on any particular case. There is no evidence whatsoever that she has any sort of philosophical underpinnings.
"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
It is not detailed but derived presumptively based upon nothing specific (reasonable expectation?) as ambiguously supported by referencing the Ninth Amendment among other things...
Ninth Amendment.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It is odd that the Ninth Amendment can support 'privacy' yet many would and still argue that the specific unalienable rights from the Creator as detailed in the Declaration of Independence do not exist and warrant deference at minimum by ambiguous support by referencing the Ninth Amendment...
"Well, the power of constitutional review is a power we gave the SC in the constitution."
And just what power to review what are you referring to here? The Constitution pretty clearly delimited what SCOTUS could and could not do, what jurisdiction it had and so on. Maybe it would help if you refreshed your memory on Marbury v. Madison.
"It is odd that the Ninth Amendment can support 'privacy' yet many would and still argue that the specific unalienable rights from the Creator as detailed in the Declaration of Independence do not exist and warrant deference at minimum by ambiguous support by referencing the Ninth Amendment..."
There are quite a number of oddities around Religion and the courts.... they seem to think that freedom of religion ends when we set foot on public property... I'd support an amendment to correct that.
Well, I was being facetious and hyperbolic, and you're right, my comments make me look like a liar. But the direct evidence of her judicial philosophy is mighty slim.
Yes, I think she sees the 2nd as an individual right, not a collective right - based on her having owned a handgun and being from TX. Her advocating that the ABA abortion on demand position paper be submitted to entire membership can be spun either way (not enough data to know if she's a "let the people decide" or if she knew the vote was a foregone conclusion either way).
I'm scratching my head as to other points of view I have, based on evidence. Oh yeah, her TX Bar Journal prose is, on balance, advocaing more of a collective approach to government - e.g., "compassionate conservatism", "we can all help" and a bit of elitism (she wrote of lawyers and the legal profession as social bedrock).
Her personal charity and compassion is admirable. I see that reinforcing a risk of big government spending.
The quality of her writing is awful, IMO. Syrupy and as for substance, fence sitting.
I started off with a very open mind and giving her the benefit of the doubt -- I still have an open mind, but the data I have seen is either neutral or negative, to my point of view.
The input of people who have worked with her? They say she is commited to pro-life, but that cannot be stretched into a judicial philosophy.
And yet you still claim to be ignorant. So please, save the "I'm an honest seeker of truth" routine.
Hey - help me out. We're all in this together. I'm no choir boy, that's for sure. But I do try to be intellectually honest. And have some fun, this board and this issue, while serious, is so darn polarized that I succumb to temptation.
Cheers, from the dark side.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,the Laws of the United States.
That power.
OMG!!! (there are some folks I'd just love to ping to this thread, but I dare not!)
Ain't that parta Spector's "Scottish Rite" law, er sumthin??? (snort!)
"Youse guys are gonna LOVE this Harriet!"
LOL! Classic...
whatever
Ooops! Dere it is!!!
Such a paragon of articulateness.
Astros or White Sox?
Quite frankly my head is hurting. Just because one thinks that the SC was correct in seeing Griswold as a privacy issue does not mean for one moment I think Miers competent today when I didn't yesterday.
Astros playing tonoght. White Sox won the pennant yesterday (ahhh - sounds like you follow ...). We'll go White Sox. They beat our RedSox.
Which begs the question: If your interpretation is correct and (by necessity) Griswold is wrong, why do you support Miers for saying Griswold is correct?
Aha! Caught you again! Several have directly said she believed in judicial restraint and a strict interpretation. So, why do you leave that out (somewhat conveniently...)?
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.