Turbin ping.
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.
So I guess he won't mind if I buy a 'MACHINE GUN' today and keep it in my bedroom.
~~Durbin Mocking off~~
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.
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.
He really puts emphasis on the Dick in Dick Durbin.
Alito was Baptized by liberal outrage and Confirmed by Bork, Levin and many more conservatives.
Enjoy.
Does the unborn child also have a right to privacy? Should it not have a right to be secure ?
If enumerated rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have enumerated rights...
..has anyone asked AJ Durbin for a copy of the famous letter he got from a so called agent?
Doogle
A transparent attempt by Durbin to set off outrage similar to what happened with the Miers nomination. Pathetic.
I believe I have a right to privacy--but that right doesn't extend to the protection of killing, rape, child molestation or any number of activities that are against the laws of society.
I thought the ONLY right to provacy in the Constiution coverd the issuance of search warrents for evidence.
They have the whole issue upside down (as do many "conservatives"). A right need not be enumerated in the Constitution for it to be held by individuals. The format of the Constitution is to list explicitly the various powers and legitimate areas of interest for the government. The onus is on THEM to show how where the Constitution ALLOWS them to invade someone's privacy, not upon the individual to find a provision prohibiting such invasion. Anything not explicitly addressed should be decided in favor of the citizen and against the government.
I've posted this before and wonder if anyone else has heard this.
A friend of mine, a democrat, was at a fund raiser of some type several weeks ago, and over heard Durbin talking about taxing transactions on the internet e.g. like on eBAy. He would be in favor of a "federal" law that would tax online "garage sale" like transactions e.g. eBay of new items and "used" items that sell for over $500.
I have not been able to verify this, but it came from a democrat friend who has come to realize that Durbin is the idiot we all think he is.
Has anyone else heard this? I think it is a question that someone should pose to him and to people like Hillary for that matter.
n
It seems rather odd to ask anyone who undergoes the virtual vivisection that a Supreme court candidate must undergo whether or not he believes in a right to privacy. If a criminal suspect had his life taken apart the way these respected judges must, his lawyer would scream.
It seems rather odd to ask anyone who undergoes the virtual vivisection that a Supreme court candidate must undergo whether or not he believes in a right to privacy. If a criminal suspect had his life taken apart the way these respected judges must, his lawyer would scream.