Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The judges are boxed in by precedent and the Constitution. Roe keeps the courts and legislatures from amking abortion a huge fucking disaster culturally and politically. Roe draws an imperfect line for women's rights and says "We ought not to go fucking around with this, because really... it belongs in a doctor's office, not a legilature, where it will be used as a political football by imbeciles and whores."

Is the doctor living up to his hypocritical oath when he kills the unborn child?

Bye bye, babyjesus......

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Obviously.

I made this post on August 30th.

Strict Construction Post #2971

Did anyone see that West Wing where Rob Lowe was questioning the potential Supreme Court nominee about enumerated rights.

He said that someone in the Georgia legislature voted against the Bill of rights (when the amendment was put to the Georgia legislature for a vote) claiming that if the rights were written down that some idiot would later claim that the rights written down were the only ones that existed.

Anyone know if this is true. Anyone have the real quote?

___________________________________________

I wrote this post because I had never heard this before. Is anyone aware of some common law rights? Was there a tradition in the colonies of court created (common law) rights.

The statement in West Wing seems to imply that.

I am pretty sure that all the rights in England were established by common law.

Are there common law rights in the United States?

This is pretty much the crux of the issue isn't it? If there is a common law tradition in the colonies and then the United States of common law rights then the Supreme Court making up rights wouldn't be all that strange and the whole idea of strict construction (at least as far as rights are concerned) comes under suspicion. Anyone know about this stuff?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Is the doctor living up to his hypocritical oath when he kills the unborn child?

Bye bye, babyjesus......

Put DOWN the wine, and stop with the illustrations. They hinder the argument.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
I completely agree that, in the natural rights of man, privacy is there.

Show me where it's in that limited document called our Constitution.

You're like a religious nut. You want it to be, and so therefore it is there.

Umm, no.

OK. I'll play... So we have no right to privacy. Then I think HIPAA needs to be overturned. Its patient confidentiality clauses are unconstitutional. Oh, and your child's school records - not confidential (unlesss you've signed some agreement with the school). We can publish her conduct reports in the paper if we like, no? Oh, and when you get hair plugs, I'm going to pay your doc for the info and send the photos to all your friends. If you don't have the right to control your own body, well, your doc and I certainly don't have any reason not to publish that shit for a laugh, right?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
I made this post on August 30th.

Wow, you're old.

Are you asking if the Georgia tale was true? Certainly it was. The fear about listing rights was that there were tons of rights that everyone recognized, and if you made a list, you'd miss some. That's why the BOR came later - it was only after a few months that some signers recognized that they'd better start listing them, because the lg body seemed to feel a freedom in the absence of a list.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not jetisoning rationality. The right to privacy is so clearly woven through every phrase of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that "obvious" actually fits.

Yet no one "found" it within the first 180-so years of American jurisprudence. Funny dat.

If we have no right to privacy, then what rights do we have? Don't you consider privacy an inherent party of "liberty," "freedom."

And yet they didn't add the word "privacy" (or any synonym, for that matter). Now why is that? Typo?

The only reason its even being debated is because a pack of literalists have tried to torture an imbecillic, narrow interpretation out of the Bill of Rights and Constitutions to fit their political agendas.

One could also say that a bunch of creative unelected freelancers have usurped the Constitution to impose their imbecillic idea of social engineering.

Of course there's a right to privacy. Think of the absurd results we'd have if there wasn't one. How in the hell could we have any freedom at all if we had no right to privacy? Jesus, unlawful search and seizure would be legal under your interpretation.

Actually, that is EXPRESSLY prohibited in the Constitution, so there is no need to find that one "emating from a penumbra."

Why not pick another example.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't get there constitutionally. Roe represents a justice deciding that it's all a fucking mess, and he's going to clean it up.

But we're lawyers, and we know better. He fucked up. This isn't a constitutional issue. It's a moral one.

The liberals have no faith in the electorate. they are elitists, not populists. They cannot win at the ballot box or by referendum so they must seek to impose their faux-intellectual elitism by judicial fiat. Thankfully the people are on to them.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
The judges are boxed in by precedent and the Constitution.

If this was truly the case, Roe would never have happened.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Again, I agree with the sentiment, but I can't get there constitutionally. Roe represents a justice deciding that it's all a fucking mess, and he's going to clean it up.

But we're lawyers, and we know better. He fucked up. This isn't a constitutional issue. It's a moral one.

I agree - it should be solved outside the courts. That ain't going to happen.

Some shit needs to be cleaned by the court. I trust them a hell of a lot more than the elected filth we send to office. The shit that runs my state shouldn't be licensed to run a rendering plant.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Put DOWN the wine, and stop with the illustrations. They hinder the argument.

I haven't picked it up yet. This is my brain on sober. Scared?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
OK. I'll play... So we have no right to privacy. Then I think HIPAA needs to be overturned. Its patient confidentiality clauses are unconstitutional. Oh, and your child's school records - not confidential (unlesss you've signed some agreement with the school). We can publish her conduct reports in the paper if we like, no? Oh, and when you get hair plugs, I'm going to pay your doc for the info and send the photos to all your friends. If you don't have the right to control your own body, well, your doc and I certainly don't have any reason not to publish that shit for a laugh, right?

Gawd. grow up. We're not playing.

Several of your examples have been taken care of because various state and fed legislatures and congresses agreed that these were priorities. When you get our elected reps together, they do tend to vote for things that make sense. (Not counting fucking Alaskan bridges.)

But, if we could only rely on the Cnstitution, then, no, I think your wrst-case nightmare comes true.

Thankfully, we have those legislative bodies, who do tend to reflect our mores and values.

But you can't simply give me some bullshit statement like "well, would it be right if we DIDN'T have a right to free sushi?!", and expect that to provide proof that our Constitution provides for sushi.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The liberals have no faith in the electorate. they are elitists, not populists. They cannot win at the ballot box or by referendum so they must seek to impose their faux-intellectual elitism by judicial fiat. Thankfully the people are on to them.

The scary thing is, if they ever gave in and let the people decide it, they'd be on the winning side. That's why no real Republican wants Roe to be overturned.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wow, you're old.

Are you asking if the Georgia tale was true? Certainly it was. The fear about listing rights was that there were tons of rights that everyone recognized, and if you made a list, you'd miss some. That's why the BOR came later - it was only after a few months that some signers recognized that they'd better start listing them, because the lg body seemed to feel a freedom in the absence of a list.

Actually the story was that the members of the Georgia legislature used this as a reason not to vote for the Bill of Rights. This occurred after the Constitution was accpeted and when the Bill of Rights was being sent to the state legislatures. This was the reason given for specifically voting against the Bill of Rights.

If people in the Georgia legislature were worried that if you list rights in the constitution that people will later assume that these are the only rights, isn't their fear being realized right now by the strict constructionists?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I agree - it should be solved outside the courts. That ain't going to happen.

Some shit needs to be cleaned by the court. I trust them a hell of a lot more than the elected filth we send to office. The shit that runs my state shouldn't be licensed to run a rendering plant.

You don't trust the legislature because you don't believe in representative democracy. You are an elitist. Unfortunately for you the majority and the consitution reject such arrogance.

Maybe all the intellectually elitist effette snobs should get together and live in one place and wow each other with their enlightened genius. Oh wait, they already have, its called the People's Socialist Republic of Berkeley. they have a colony outpost called Seattle.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Some shit needs to be cleaned by the court. I trust them a hell of a lot more than the elected filth we send to office.

Will you say that after Bush selects three or four of them? Or is this only true with the current batch?

I'm prejudging you, I know, but I think I know the answer.