Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then you should read Griswold (none)
    The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516 -522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Roberts basically restated this paragraph. The last sentence must be pursued and can be pursued. And frankly, the language is clear and unequivocal.

    Due respect, you have made a mistake here.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:56:21 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're right (none)
      if he had recited this paragraph, or even paraphrased it, that would have been news. If he had mentioned zones of privacy or even said "ninth" it would have been significant. But he didn't.

      Progressives believe in a strong, effective American government: balancing budgets, empowering people, & helping the least among us.

      by BrianVA on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 07:58:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am sorry (none)
        But you are missing the point. Do you think he will deny the 9th?

        And did you not hear him say that right to privacy has been recognized by the SCOTUS for 80 years?

        He was unequivocal.

        I think you are now grasping at straws.

        Which leads me to this question, do YOU believe in the right to privacy as recognized in Griswold?

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:01:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes McCarthy (none)
          what the hell are you talking about? Of course I do. You doubt my stripes b/c we don't agree on parsing his words? Come off it.

          Progressives believe in a strong, effective American government: balancing budgets, empowering people, & helping the least among us.

          by BrianVA on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:05:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  McCarthy? (none)
            I asked you a direct question. I accused you of nothing.

            You have 13 comments, including those in this thread, for history.

            I have no idea what your views are. And your comments gave me no evidence of what they were.

            See, I base my judgments on evidence. You had no evidence of your views.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:25:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  sorry to intrude in a lawyers' argument (none)
          but I think the issue is whether he believes that "the right to privacy" is protected THROUGH the 9th, i.e. whether it's a broad fundamental right inherent in the Constitution and underlying the specific enumerated rights rather than a narrow general term that describes only what's been explicitly mentioned in these enumerated rights. As you've suggested, I think this point is what needs to be hammered on now that the door has been opened.

          remember your humanity, and forget the rest

          by human on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:53:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that he (4.00)
        outlined the others, but specifically not the ninth seemed particularly odd to me, too.

        By omission on purpose.  The unenumerated rights is the area where he can fudge.

        Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

        by bronte17 on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:17:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I mean think about it (none)
      Roberts has spent hundreds of hours preparing for these hearings. You don't think he considered how he would answer the question: "Do you believe there is a right to privacy in the constitution?" The way to answer that question and be honest is to say yeah and then enumerate the 1st, 3rd, and 4th, and call that privacy. What was he going to do otherwise? Say   "No". Not likely.

      Progressives believe in a strong, effective American government: balancing budgets, empowering people, & helping the least among us.

      by BrianVA on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:03:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely (none)
        Think about it. He had hundreds of hours to formulate a weaselly answer and didn't give it. He has opened the door.

        We get to pursue the subject at length.

        Roberts is simply not all that you folks suggest I terms of clever lawyering, if his intent was to avoid the subject.
         

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:06:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It sounds (none)
          like you are fairly impressed with Roberts, at this point.  I haven't been following the hearings (I don't have cable) . . . is it possible that Roberts is actually a good guy?

          "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

          by LithiumCola on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:09:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No I am not (none)
            I actually am less impressed with his cleverness at this time.

            I am merely reacting to what he stated in his testimony.

            He said what he said. Now we get to pursue it in depth.

            The real point of my post. Hence, "Opening the Door."

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:22:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes (none)
            As much as some here would deny it, I suspect he will end up being a moderate conservative swing vote with more intelligence than O'Connor.
        •  Armado, I think it is a well conceived strategy . (none)
          To make Roberts appear more benign than he actually is. If the MSM, portrays him as a moderate or a mainstream conservative in the mold of O'Conner (which I sincerely doubt he is), then this could give Bush cover to nominate a true hate monger like Janice Brown for the next slot.

          Armando, this guy is a slick as they come, like Mayor Nagin.

          http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.htm

          by nyceve on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:17:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Compare his response to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's (none)
          There is a constitutional right to privacy composed of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the fourth amendment: The Government shall not break into my home or my office without a warrant, based on probable cause; the Government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy. The Government shall not make my decisions for me. I shall make, as an individual, uncontrolled by my Government, basic decisions that affect my life's course. Yes, I think that what has been placed under the label privacy is a constitutional right that has those two elements, the right to be let alone and the right to make basic decisions about one's life's course.

          Close enough for me.

    •  did he use the word "emanate"? (none)
      That would be a big deal indeed, as the conservatives have always made fun of the notion of privacy (or any other right) emanating from the Constitutional words.

      If he merely said - yes there is a right to privacy in the 4th, 5th, 3d amendments - that would be nice but unremarkable.  But if he said "emanate" this would be an express signal that he claims to buy into the whole Griswold/Roe theoretical framework

      •  Exactly my point (none)
        but you cut to the matter much more skillfully than me.

        Progressives believe in a strong, effective American government: balancing budgets, empowering people, & helping the least among us.

        by BrianVA on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:36:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What I would looooove to see... (none)
      ...is somebody digging up some of the more odious opinions of Scalia, Thomas, or Rhenquist (RIP) and having Roberts either defend or repudiate them.  THAT, my friends, would be Must See TV.

      What did we do to deserve George W. Bush?

      by republicans are idiots on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:27:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site