Alito may back right to privacy, Durbin says

San Jose Mercury News (reg. req) ^ | 11/02/2005 | Jill Zuckman

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

After meeting with Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the judge had convinced him that he believes in a right to privacy.

"Although he didn't go quite as far as John Roberts did in his hearing, he satisfied me that he recognized this to be one of the unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and he led me to believe that he felt that it was an established right," Durbin said. "I think he believes in the fundamental right to privacy."

During a 40-minute visit in Durbin's Capitol leadership office, the pair chatted about baseball, their families and growing up as first-generation Americans. Durbin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to get to know Alito as a person, as well as to understand his views on key legal issues.

...

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

There it is. Dick Turbin has clearly admitted that the right to "privacy", in his mind a synonym for the right to kill an unborn child, is NOT written in the text of the Constitution and has no basis therein.

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

Turbin ping.

[mattdono]

one of the unenumerated rights

Good Catch! Isn't it funny how Turbin Durbin is SPECIFICALLY LOOKING for a jurist to even believe in "unenumerated rights"?

Hmm...seems like a consistent case of the leftist looking for things that don't exist in the Constitution (or taken things away that do exist) to meet their own political agendas.

Sad.

[Condor51]

WOW!
I'm glad 'my' senator believes sooooooo much in my unenumerated right to privacy.

So I guess he won't mind if I buy a 'MACHINE GUN' today and keep it in my bedroom.

~~Durbin Mocking off~~

[Sgt_Schultze]

While I don't know what privacy has to do with abortion, the unenumerated rights can be found here...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If rights do not exist independent of government, then you agree that the government has control of what rights you have and can recind them if it desires to do so.

[fatrat]

i have noted several dems making similar statements. i think they are setting this up so they can whine and complain about him betraying them after he gets confirmed and they know he will be confirmed.

[conservative physics]

of course there is an unenumerated right to privacy in the constitution... but that doesn't mean you have a right to kill an innocent child in the privacy of your home, doctors office or back ally, any more than you have a right to commit any other crime while in the privacy of your home.

[grania]

i have noted several dems making similar statements. i think they are setting this up so they can whine and complain about him betraying them after he gets confirmed and they know he will be confirmed.

GWB gets to rally his base if they drag this out, and he wins a long, hard-fought battle for social conservatives.

If the Dems have any brains, they'll whine a little and ASAP approve of Alito, then get to complain about all of the wonderful, constitutional stuff the Supreme Court does to save the nation. (please, please, please....)

[new yorker 77]

He really puts emphasis on the Dick in Dick Durbin.

[new yorker 77]

Not going to work Turbin.

Alito was Baptized by liberal outrage and Confirmed by Bork, Levin and many more conservatives.

Enjoy.

[bert]

Does the unborn child also have a right to privacy? Should it not have a right to be secure ?

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

Of course I'm familiar with the 9th and 10th Amendments, but I thought the leftist RATs have been telling us infanticide is a Constitutional right.

Now we learn that it is actually one of many rights NOT contained therein, but instead one of those rights retained by the People covered by 9 and 10.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of nothing, but I thought this admission represents a dramatic shift in how the left justifies the legality of infanticide.

[FDNYRHEROES]

If enumerated rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have enumerated rights...

[Doogle]

..has anyone asked AJ Durbin for a copy of the famous letter he got from a so called agent?

Doogle

[counterpunch]

The 9th Amendment is extremely misunderstood and frequently misrepresented.

All it is saying is that the Rights named by the Constitution are not to the exclusion of any other unnamed right. What it does not say, however, is that such unnamed rights cannot be limited by specific acts of legislation.

These unnamed rights do not have the full protection of the Constitution, nor does their absence from the Constitution automatically nullify them as a right. It is simply saying that we have full rights unless otherwise specifically noted. It merely states that our rights default in the affirmative.

[counterpunch]

So in other words, we do have a right to privacy... except where limited by law.

 

[zeugma]

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of nothing, but I thought this admission represents a dramatic shift in how the left justifies the legality of infanticide.

I can see your POV with that. Earlier statements were somewhat unclear. When I first saw this thread, I was going to respond with the 9^th amendment as well.

I'd also like to make the point regarding the general disdain that many conservatives have towards the "right to privacy" is misdirected. I would think that when you consider the 4^th and 5^th amendments as well, that you'd agree the founders of this republic were favorably disposed towards privacy.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Look, I think we agree. The ones who are mucking up the language are the lefties who are equating privacy with infanticide. The far lefties will never find the unenumerated rights where they belong - the ninth (and tenth) amendments because the tenth specifically forbids about 75% of all federal activity. Obeying the tenth amendment would also require them to obey the second amendment.

The only way to combat the leftist lies it is to forbid them to equate privacy with abortion. But I don't know haw far that can go when the Stone Age Media is complicit in the lie.

[NatsFan]

A transparent attempt by Durbin to set off outrage similar to what happened with the Miers nomination. Pathetic.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Maybe. But in order to regulate any unenumerated rights, Congress must have specific Article 1 powers to do so. The framers were quite careful in how much power the allocated to the ruling class. The tenth amendment was intended as the safeguard against a reaching legislature.

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.

Those powers are laid out in section 8 of article 1. It is a limited list but there is but there is the catch-all ...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

So, as long as the laws are in comportment with a legitimate use of Article 1 power, then the federal government would be within its lawful right to regulate an unenumerated right. But it should be required to justify such limitations.