Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Gosh (4.00)
    You seem to have decided awfully fast that it is the wingnuts who are being played for fools, and not us.

    In the discussions on stare decisis and other issues, you have often pointed out that this is a political blog, and not a legal one.  Politically, when the other side is gloating about something they think they are getting away with, you probably want to highlight it, whether or not you happen to agree with them from a legal standpoint.

    Unless you have made the decision to go ju-jitsu on us I don't understand what your POLITICAL goal is at this particular moment.

    •  Come on (none)
      Roberts' answer on privacy should NOT make them beam.

      It makes no sense.

      Gosh, if you don't see that, then hw else do you explain Roberts' opening the door.

      With due respect, you cited Confirm Them to give us your reaction. I find that approach to be utter bullshit.

      Chris should note it, but not let that be the basis for his analysis.

      We make our own judgments.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:28:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My reaction (4.00)
        Well, first, here is how SCOTUSBlog summarizes Roberts' testimony:

        9:52 - Specter asks about Roberts' reference in a memo to the "so-called right to privacy." Roberts - I do believe that the right to privacy is protected in various ways; the 4th A; the 1st A; 3d A; and in addition the Court has over a series of decisions going back 80 years has recognized that it is a component of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, not merely procedurally but also as a substantive matter as well.

        Working from that, as opposed to being able to hear the actual testimony, I have two reactions:

        1. Of course there is a "right to privacy" in the sense that, for example, the privacy of your home is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.  No one denies that.  If I were a total wingnut, my answer would probably sound something like "sure there is a right to privacy, as specifically enumerated in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th amendments," and I would hope everyone just focused on the first part of my answer.

        2. Recognizing that there is an 80-year line of substantive due process cases does not say anything about whether you agree with the rights identified in those cases, or whether you would seek to narrow the scope of substantive due process as a Justice.  Now if he said that he agrees with the substantive due process line of cases, THAT would be newsworthy.

        Ninth Amendment, friends, it's all about the Ninth Amendment.  Saying there is a "right to privacy" is meaningless without some statement of which substantive interests are protected by that right.  If you believe abortion is murder, for example, there's surely no right to murder people in private, so the "right to privacy" would not protect abortion in the slightest.
        •  Damned right it's the ninth amendment (none)
          We need  to follow up on this. He's got to address the ninth amendment privacy rights, or its meaningless.

          Should also address other "unenumerated" rights.

          I like to think of the Republican Party as an Iceberg--large, white, cold-hearted, not too swift, and can't change direction.

          by DyspepTex on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:47:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I Agree (none)
      Saying that the Court has recognized some right to privacy says nothing about the scope of the right, and no one believes that states want to start regulating marital purchase of contraceptives again.

      What was he going to say, Armando? "I do not believe the Supreme Court has recognized any right to privacy"?

      •  What was he going to say (none)
        The idea of weaseling around it and discussing minutia and running out the clock does not strike you as an alternative?

        And you miss my larger point. He has OPENED THE DOOR.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:31:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really (none)
          Between weaseling around for two days and just restating the basics of Griswold, he took the obvious choice.  

          The door is always open for these questions, Armando -- the Senators can do whatever they want.  I just don't know what you think is going to be revealed here.

    •  As for my political strategy (none)
      my post is title Opening the Door.

      I have a suggested line of questioning.

      How can I make it plainer?

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:30:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site