Making Baby Jesus Cry

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
The New York Times transcript of the Roberts hearings today.

Can you sum it up for me?

How many times does Schumer refer to himself?

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Usually there's more to go on than the 9th amend. provides.

One would think. Or hope.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Can you sum it up for me?

How many times does Schumer refer to himself?

Just confirm this lightweight and lets get to the meatier battle over Gonzales.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Usually there's more to go on than the 9th amend. provides.

Just those hundreds of years of common law. Oh, and common sense.*

* Which, of course, has no business in a con law debate.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
OK, so unless the SCOTUS rules on the right, or the right is codified in an amendment, we assume the acts such a right would allow are prohibitted? Isn't that a little like "guilty until proven innocent"? Are you suggesting that every behavior is prohibitted until and unless specifically allowed by constitution or SCOTUS ruling? That sounds pretty silly to me.

But like I said, strict constructionalism is silly. Its just a mechanism to preclude rights certain people don't think we ought to have.

I thought you were saying that you just feel/know the right to supply married people with contraceptives exists, regardless of if or where it might be in the constitution. I was just saying that I would find a decision saying just that more honest than what Griswold is. A bunch of Judges arguing where the right is found is not a convincing decision.

I mean, if it were clear we could just read a copy of the Constitution and see it. Instead, you have to read the several parts of Griswold and do a head count of where every Judge sees some of the right.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Just those hundreds of years of common law. Oh, and common sense.*

* Which, of course, has no business in a con law debate.

Hank, could you send sebby your Griswold primer? I found it most helpful.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hank, could you send sebby your Griswold primer? I found it most helpful.

I’m not arguing within the confines of any case. I’m not playing some dorky law school game here. You can all circle jerk over that crap if you like. All I’m saying is that, from a common law and common sense perspective, we clearly have a right to privacy, and the issue of where that right stems from is technical and irrelevant.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I’m not arguing within the confines of any case. I’m not playing some dorky law school game here. You can all circle jerk over that crap if you like. All I’m saying is that, from a common law and common sense perspective, we clearly have a right to privacy, and the issue of where that right stems from is technical and irrelevant.

Where in the common law does the right to privacy exist? I'm not asking for a constitutional amendment, I'm asking for a case cite from, say the 1700s in England.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Hank, could you send sebby your Griswold primer? I found it most helpful.

I just reread it.

How could studying that case not send 50% of law students heading for business school?

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just reread it.

How could studying that case not send 50% of law students heading for business school?

A few of us idiots did business school first. . .

ETA: And yet, I was tempted to do it again.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Widely discussed doesn't mean there was substantive.

Care to list "all those" rights? Seriously--I haven't recently boned up on my constitutional history.

I think the very point of the ninth is not to ennumerate them, but I can give some examples that I think 90% or more of the delegates of the constitutional conventions would have viewed as fundamental rights:

The right to own property, and to buy and sell property you own;

The right to will and inherit (this one goes back to the Magna Carta);

The right of habeas corpus (the constitution limits the infringement or suspension of the right, but does not grant the right - so where does the right come from?); and

The right to enter into marriage (mentioned in Griswold and now the topic of another little debate; there's a bit in the Magna Carta relating to marriage as well, but they still might have let the King choose a bride without her consent back then).

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Where in the common law does the right to privacy exist? I'm not asking for a constitutional amendment, I'm asking for a case cite from, say the 1700s in England.

Don't be absurd, you strict constructionist small minded idiot. I dont care about actual cases or cites. It's common sense!!! Something in which you bozos are in short supply.

[SlaveNoMore]

Captain
The right to enter into marriage (mentioned in Griswold and now the topic of another little debate; there's a bit in the Magna Carta relating to marriage as well, but they still might have let the King choose a bride without her consent back then).

They also had no problem banning marriages of a type.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Don't be absurd, you strict constructionist small minded idiot. I dont care about actual cases or cites. It's common sense!!! Something in which you bozos are in short supply.

Those old English cases are tedious. Cut sebby some slack on that one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Those old English cases are tedious. Cut sebby some slack on that one.

does the advent of sperm banks render a transfer of Blackacre "to my children," void under the Rule against perpetuities?