Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito lacks support (411 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Like I said before (none)
    Although I believe Griswold was wrongly decided, there is highly unlikely to be a case where it could be overruled.  So we may as well let it lie.
    •  See above. (none)
      Justice Roberts specifically held that a right to privacy can be found in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution.  Here is that liberty clause:

      Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      That is the very same clause that was cited in the original decision in Roe V. Wade.  Justice John Roberts said under oath that a privacy right can be found in that text.  So much for the strict constructionists.

      So, he was either lying, or you don't know what Justice Roberts really believes.

      Oh, and BTW, Specter has reported that Alito answered the same way when presented with this question.  He found a right to privacy in the liberty clause too.

      Sucks to be you.

      "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

      by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:42:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you import too much (none)
        into Roberts' statements.
        •  In other words, you think he was lying too (none)
          hehe, you don't like that he said a right to privacy can be found in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment.  Well, suck it.  He said it.

          So, if he was lying, he was lying under oath.  I thought you guys were all about taking words at face value.  Well, Roberts explicitly said that the liberty clause provides a substantive right to privacy.  You went from denying that he ever said it... then when it was pointed out his exact words, all you can do is retreat to that I shouldn't take him at his word.  Sad and pathetic.

          "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

          by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:57:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He may have said it (none)
            But I believe taht his understanding of that right is limited to what the first 10 Amendments cover.  The so-called incorporation doctrine.  He explictly rejected a "general" right to privacy in his prior writings.
            •  And he explicitly... (none)
              rejected his own prior writings during the confirmation as his paraphrasing of another's viewpoint, not his own.

              I get it.  You don't like it that Robert's has said this, but you can't get around it.  And please provide a cite for this contention that the privacy right as found in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment is the same one that can be found in the first ten amendments.  I don't see that anywhere.  In fact, he went beyond that in the hearings.  You want me to continue or are you too depressed?

              "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

              by manyoso on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:01:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not on that point n/t (none)
                •  Cat got your tounge? (none)
                  You must be really depressed...  which past writing of Robert's are you referring to?  The one where he made the slip about a "so-called right to privacy" ? because he disowned that comment.  Explicitly.  Do you know this?  If not, I'd be happy to post the transcript.

                  Now, I've asked you provide a link for your belief that Roberts has a view of the right to privacy that is more limited than the one he gave in his confirmation.  What do you have besides this one line quip?  I can see why you'd be resorting back to that.  You got nothing.

                  Seriously.  Robert's, if you are to take him at his word, has disowned your viewpoint.  You'll have to get over it.  That, or you'll have to accept that he lied under oath.

                  "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

                  by manyoso on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:17:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  For teh love of pete (none)
                    He had a half-an-hour discussion with Schumer where they discussed "general" right to privacy.  Roberts specifically refused to endorse the idea of a "general right" to privacy.  

                    SCHUMER: Would you say there's a general right to privacy?

                    ROBERTS: I don't know what general means.

                    SCHUMER: Substantive right to privacy.

                    ROBERTS: Well, substantive, yes. I have said that, that the protection extends to substantive protection. But when you say general, I don't know what that means. I don't know if that means...

                    SCHUMER: Excuse me. Didn't Justice Thomas disagree with the substantive right to privacy in Lawrence?

                    ROBERTS: His conclusion was that the liberty protected by the due process clause did not extend to that right, yes.

                    SCHUMER: Thank you. So, it would seem to me you disagree with him. I think you said it without saying it.

                    ROBERTS: No, Senator, you're asking me whether the right to privacy protected under the liberty clause extends to a particular right, the right at issue in Lawrence.

                    SCHUMER: I think what I'm asking you: Is there a substantive right to privacy? I don't apply it to a particular case.

                    ROBERTS: I have said there is a substantive right to privacy.

                    SCHUMER: And in Lawrence, Justice Thomas seemed to say there is no substantive right to privacy.

                    ROBERTS: No, as I understand it -- again, his testimony as a nominee was that there was. What he said was -- the quote you read in Lawrence --said there's no general right to privacy. Now, I don't know...

                    SCHUMER: His holding was that there was no substantive right to privacy under the liberty clause. Wasn't it? Wasn't that the whole thrust of his argument?

                    ROBERTS: No, I think, Senator, that his conclusion in Lawrence was that whatever right there was, it did not extend to the activity that was at issue in Lawrence.

                    SCHUMER: Bottom line is: You're unwilling to differentiate yourself from Justice Thomas's view on Lawrence.

                    ROBERTS: Well, it's consistent with the approach I've taken that I don't think it's appropriate to protect -- necessary to protect the independence and integrity of the court, to comment on whether that decision was correctly decided or not. And that is consistent with the approach that every member of the court...

                    It seems to me that all Roberts is willing to endorse is Meyers, Pierce, and Griswold.  He is not willing to say that there is a right to privacy that extends to generally being left alone so long as your activities are not harming anyone else.

                    •  No where is 'general' right to privacy defined. (none)
                      So, for Thomas and Roberts to draw a line between some 'general' right to privacy and the right to privacy found in the liberty clause of the fourteenth amendment.  And Roberts readily admits that such a distinction is meaningless, because no one has defined a 'general' right.

                      However, both Thomas and Roberts have said that a 'right to privacy' can be found in the liberty clause.  That clause, as you well know, makes no mention of the word 'privacy'.  Therefore, Roberts and Thomas are either lying OR they don't believe like you do... they aren't strict constructionists.  Read the clause.  Where do you see the word 'privacy'?  No, Roberts and Thomas are either liars OR they believe that rights can be found in the constitution that are not literally spelt out in full.

                      Again, sucks to be you.

                      "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

                      by manyoso on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 01:36:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site