Skip to main content

View Diary: Understanding the Right to Privacy And the Right to Choose (322 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The same (none)
    And the Court did the same calculus.

    Obviously, many of us diagree with where they came out.

    But on the right to choose, for 32 years, they have got it right.

    Plus, you certainly can't compare the level of intrusion between your examples and whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 10:43:26 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Intrusion (none)
      The level of intrusion in the examples I cite isn't comparable to that of carrying a pregnancy to term.

      However, the consequences of being caught with narcotics can be as intrusive.

      If you were to be sent to prison for a minimum mandated sentence of several years for possession or cultivation of marijuana, for example, you might find it extremely invasive.

      Blueshifting: Making progressive politics visible.

      by Malacandra on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 10:58:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (none)
        But the conseqences of the intrusion are not at issue, rather the priviacy right is.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 11:05:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so, Armando, where do *you* stand...? (none)
          Do you agree with the interpretation that the only point at which the state's right to intrude upon the integrity and autonomy of your body and mind, is where the intrusion is as traumatic and potentially hazardous as forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term...?

          Or do you believe there is some threshold point below that, at which the power of the state stops and the autonomy of your person begins?  

          How about "virginity inspections" to verify compliance with pledges of chastity required for highschool cheerleaders?   Okay girlie, up with your dress, coach is going to check your hymen...  Not much different than forcing little boys to urinate under the watchful gaze of adults in order to prove they aren't doing drugs.  

          And what of the Texas sodomy law case?  Here the court says that the state stops where your genitals begin.  But if we accord autonomy to the genitals, how do we argue against according equal protection to the brain?  

          I know quite well where the case law is on these issues, as I've been watching all of them closely since approximately when I hit puberty, about three decades ago.  

          What I'm interested in is where you stand.

          •  As Armando's spokesman... (none)
            I cannot give you an answer on those issues, being that it may be something he may someday have to rule on if he ever gets a judicial position, in the near or far future.



            In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

            by faux on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 04:34:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It depends (none)
            on the State's interest.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:37:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Armando... (none)

              You're a smart guy and that was a non-answer.  

              Where do you stand?  Where do you draw the line?  Convenience or compelling state interest, or somewhere else?   If you were the head of state, what's your interest..?

              Please, no more Scotty impersonations.  Let's have the answer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site