|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
You are right DK, where I'm coming from is 'privacy' might be implicit, but it is not 'explicit'. The Justices who ruled on Griswold, were using every amendment under the sun as a sign that it was, if I remember correctly even the 9 & 10 as justifications for it. Was not the best or strongest way to make a case.
|
Mojo_PeiPei, I'm hoping that it was just an oversight that I received no response to my questions to you, on March 23, in the following quote box.
If your lack of response was not an oversight, consider that you are repeating your argument after making no effort to answer my questions and without challenging my comments, all in the following, March 23 post:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...cy#post2031853
Mojo_PeiPei, it may interest you to learn that the following is contained in the <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/privacy.htm">"Privacy Lesson"</a> that the U.S. State Dept. displays on the web to inform folks from other countries about the matter of "a right to privacy". There are indications that the authors of the web page regard "a right to privacy", particularly related to a right to access to contraceptives and to abortion, without intrusion into these private matters, by the government, as "settled" law.....far from being a product of "creative judicial interpretation", they are the prevailing view of justices of competing politcal affiliation, for more than 115 years, and thus, are no more deserving of your "creative" label, than any other rulings of the SCOTUS, including "Brown v. Board of Ed."
Where else is their an example of such a long series of consistant and progressive SCOTUS rulings, as these rulings related to "privacy", that would qualify for the critical and marginalizing label of "creative judicial interpretation"? Can you provide any examples of a progression of SCOTUS rulings, on one area of the law, in an overlapping time period (late 19th century to early 21st century) that you would exclude from your "creative judicial interpretation"? Do you accept that the SCOTUS has any standing to interpret the constitution, that result in more legitimate interpretation, than it has in the privacy rulings?
|
Your past comments on this subject:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...cy#post1769000
So abortion was legislated by the congress at the behest of the people? Also please show me where the FF and their original intent protect things such as abortion or gay marriage, those have both been issues legislated by the bench. The whole doctrine of separation of church and state is created by the judiciary, it has zero mention in any of the founding documents or the constitution, yet it is worshipped as gospel by liberals and their policy hawks behind the bench. Hell the whole "right to privacy" notion didn't come about until 100 years after the founding of our country, no where is it mentioned in the constitution, however in Griswold v. Conn. all the court needed do was state that it was "implied". You are a few hamburgers short of a value meal if you don't think the judiciary can and doesn't legislate from the bench, and I'm not even limiting it to pissed off conservatives.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...cy#post1890664
.......Fundamentally I don't know if Roberts would overturn it. He has stated how he is by and large behind the principle of a right to privacy. The importance of that is, Conservatives maintain there is no such thing as a right to privacy, it is no where mentioned in the constitution (which is true), and it was improperly inferred with the case of Griswold V. COnnecticut. I don't know where that leaves us, maybe Roberts would be more partial to voting on the constitutionality of issues like Partial Birth abortion bans and the ilk, setting new precedents. By and large the man is wicked smart and deeply respected, his reputation isn't that of a staunch conservative more a solid interpretor of the constitution, which I hope is the case.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...cy#post2015067
Glad they did it, can't wait until it makes its way up through the courts, at the very least I'm hoping this will put some power back in the hands of the state. I take issue with the stance that people something thing Abortion is an inalienable civil liberty; derived from a very suspect line of reasoning in Griswold V. Conn, the right to privacy. Roe to me is a joke of no legal muster, and what is a perfect example of judicial activism.....
|
Last edited by host; 03-28-2006 at 09:46 AM..
|