Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito lacks support (411 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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