Skip to comments.Special Report: Miers Tells Specter that She Supports Griswold v. Connecticut ("Right to Privacy")
Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
And that a "right to privacy" exists in the Constitution...
Nothing more yet...
I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [381 U.S. 479, 521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have. ...GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Correct, but someone may not go as far as outright lying and yet still be 'less than truthful' or 'deceptive'...
I think you can pretty well assume that if she supports the Griswold decision she also supports its rationale.
Agreed, and I plead guilty on the subject post you called me out on.
I agree it isn't---I'm just saying that if one criticizes it in this case, one also has to criticize it in Cheney's case---and he turned out pretty good.
Hey! You stop whackin his WASP pen!!!
" I think you can pretty well assume that if she supports the Griswold decision she also supports its rationale."
Even the justices that vote together don't always have the same rational, sometimes they even issues separate opinions.
dang if I know
the splaining from the WH just keeps on coming
Feinschwein has now joined WH folks in calling detractors sexist
A right to privacy does exist in the constitution
Which is why I choose to limit my criticism not to the process, but to bad results from not paying attention to underlying qualifications. There was no question as to Cheney's fitness to serve as vice president.
Then it becomes the hammer that the petty tyrants in black robes use to bash the Constitution into weird and ghastly liberal warps and folds. By heavens, they'll find a penumbra for a right to lurk in if they have to savagely BEAT one into existence!
Call me a cynice, but whenever I hear a nominee for the Supreme Court praise the "right to privacy," I see the reflection of a hammer in the nominee's beady little eye.
Ahhh .. I think I've found it. Here it is, and then I'll make my lame explanation.
Cboldt: I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.Okay - at this point in the development of the story, I am following my first gut reaction, which is "We are fighting the wrong battle. This nomination sucks because the nominee is a ciper." Given that overarching sense, I'm trying to steer others that way. To be honest, my comment "I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense ..." was based on the same trust many have for the nomination as a whole. At that moment, I couldn't picture GWB picking a Justice that was NOT in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. BUt even he did, I don't like the nomination.
Then I'm confused.
I prefer an open discussion of Constitutional principle; correct the overreaching by SCOTUS and other courts into hot-button social issues, the balance of powers between the Senate and the President, etc. But instead of a discussion on principle, we are having a discussion on "qualifications," "cronyism," and "stealth."
I don't like that conservaitism is reduced to stealth. It feels like being ashamed of conservatism, or being afraid that conservatism will lose in the marketplace of ideas. It comes off as "chicken" and "conflict avoidance," not just on the President's part, but also on the part of the GOP-lead Senate.
And that has pretty much been my theme all along. We're fighting the wrong battle. THe battle should be against "Uncertainty, the nominee."
Since then, having more research gone by the by, I don't think she is a strong performer, and I have serious doubts that she would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule.
I reposted that 10/7 piece on the 16th .. to make the point that not everybody was piling on the nominee from the get-go. I know for a fact that I wasn't, and you caught it too.
Link -> 726 posted on 10/16/2005 2:34:14 PM EDT by Cboldt <- repost
I can see where that sequence of posts could reasonably lead a person to see me as a liar. It's no big leap, for sure.
But that's my baggage. I can't very well fix it up - except, but for you calling me out on it, I would not have bothered to explain what changed, and why.
So I am greatful for your challenge, and in your debt.
Does any of us really trust SPECTER?
Have you been following that case that Justice Thomas took up this weekend about the prison abortion?
You said: "do people actually have a problem with Griswold v. Connecticut, which upheld a married couple's right to use contraception?"
Well, it is the case relied on in Roe v. Wade I believe.
Griswold provided a basis for Roe, but Griswold didn't require that Roe be decided as it was. Roe ignored the right of privacy of the unborn child. I am not wild about "emanations and penumbras" but I do agree that there are unenumerated rights that the Constitution should protect, and thus, that the Supreme Court must recognize. I am ok with the ultimate holding of Griswold, but I do appreciate the dissent as well. I am, reading this here, thinking of the complexity of constitutional analysis, but at the same time, I am thinking of its utter subjectivity. I am about to decide that the decisions of most judges on these kinds of cases (set aside legislative interpretation and procedural law) decide on a "gut level" basis, then write an opinion, finding the law they need to support that decision. There are few "honest traders" in the law. I think Roberts is one... assuming he told the truth at his hearing, which I believe he did. I get back to the trust Bush concept regarding Miers. She can write opinions to support that gut.
Maybe too many glasses of wine tonight..... sorry.
Caught it in passing. Haven't reviewed the underlying cause of action, blah blah blah ...
He stayed the medical procedure pending a chance for the Court to decide to take up the case, and the Court denied cert. The lady is free to get a public-paid abortion, is how my brain processed it without checking close.
Are you interested in it? Want me to check it out?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.