|
Replies: 58
| visibility 1
|
CU Medallion [55734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35284
Joined: 11/30/98
|
The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 1:49 PM
|
|
But we’ve known that since The Patriot Act.
Actually, rights in general. Miranda whats?
Except for guns. 2nd Amendment still rollin’ skrong.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 1:54 PM
|
|
You want guns off the skreet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
court acknowledging it is a political body
Jun 24, 2022, 1:59 PM
|
|
dominated by radical conservative activists
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35284
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yep. That ultra Lib RBG is rolling in her grave as we type.
Jun 24, 2022, 2:19 PM
|
|
Chickens have come home to roost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: Yep. That ultra Lib RBG is rolling in her grave as we type.
Jun 24, 2022, 2:45 PM
|
|
it's ironic that her selfish side is kinda what got us here today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Even more ironic that women are posting RBG stuff all
Jun 24, 2022, 5:25 PM
|
|
Over Insta while missing that she thought Roe was bad law too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
So 50 years of precedence
Jun 24, 2022, 2:38 PM
|
|
is the same as judicial activism?
How is that possible?
Even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh called Roe settled law in their confirmation hearings. Did they lie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
It was activism when it was decided....
Jun 24, 2022, 2:48 PM
|
|
a right was invented out of thin air...that is the epidemy of judicial activism.
I would have to look specifically at what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said specifically to see if they were lying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21564]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13913
Joined: 9/7/02
|
"a right was invented out of thin air"
Jun 24, 2022, 3:22 PM
|
|
So the other ones are straight from Jesus and Santa Claus...right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1043]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2075
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: "a right was invented out of thin air"
Jun 24, 2022, 3:50 PM
|
|
They were from the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Well, I would say the Constitution in this context....
Jun 24, 2022, 4:56 PM
[ in reply to "a right was invented out of thin air" ] |
|
and as spelled out life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are from the creator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
so was Planned Parenthood v Casey also activism?
Jun 24, 2022, 4:03 PM
[ in reply to It was activism when it was decided.... ] |
|
Casey you will recall was the last major ruling upholding Roe, which today's decision utterly destroyed...
The featured quote from the Casey decision:
"The sum of the precedential enquiry to this point shows Roe's underpinnings unweakened in any way affecting its central holding. While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable. An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."
This is purely about numbers giving Alito the ideological super majority on the court.
Oh, and here is a funny clip, the epitome of cynicism.
https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1540394326764597249?s=20&t=sllwUqy5JxHTCZWUnPV_Bw
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
That overturned 197 years of precedence. Using that logic,
Jun 24, 2022, 5:41 PM
[ in reply to So 50 years of precedence ] |
|
Roe was super duper activism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: That overturned 197 years of precedence. Using that logic,
Jun 24, 2022, 5:49 PM
|
|
“We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - not Mayor Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Ironic that some would say that "barbarous ancestors"
Jun 24, 2022, 5:53 PM
|
|
could apply to the majority in the court that ruled it a constitutional right to kill the unborn 50 years ago.
Perspective is a funny thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
So will you be cool with contraception, gay marriage...
Jun 24, 2022, 4:17 PM
[ in reply to undoing activism is not activism*** ] |
|
and interracial marriage being overturned too since those had the same underlying reasoning applied to them? Were they activism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So will you be cool with contraception, gay marriage...
Jun 24, 2022, 4:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
No they aren't. They were specifically cited by Thomas.
Jun 24, 2022, 4:22 PM
|
|
You know that. Now, please let Flow answer because I already know what you think and don't care. I want the opinion of an actual conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: No they aren't. They were specifically cited by Thomas.
Jun 24, 2022, 4:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Powers not specifically granted to the federal government...
Jun 24, 2022, 5:09 PM
[ in reply to So will you be cool with contraception, gay marriage... ] |
|
or barred from the States are up to the States to decide (or to the people).
You know...what is says in the Constitution.
All should be state issues. Now...I'm 100% against any state law prohibiting contraception and inter-racial marriage. I'm not sold on gay marriage. I more support civil unions where gay people get the same protection under the law as married couples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It's not granting those powers to the federal government
Jun 24, 2022, 5:38 PM
|
|
they are restrictions to the State against the rights of citizens.
14th Amendment:
"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."
Contraception use, same-sex marriage, abortion, and interracial marriage largely held that a person's freedom of privacy as granted to them by the 14th amendment superseded that of the State's desires (in most cases). So it's a misreading to think these granted the federal government powers when in actuality it did the opposite, it granted/confirmed the individual's rights against the State/Government.
This Supreme Court has now opened the door for the State (and/or Federal Government) to take away the rights granted in the Constitution. That doesn't seem fitting with a conservative/libertarian view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
There is no privacy right in the 14th.
Jun 24, 2022, 5:46 PM
|
|
(Note, I wish there were a privacy right in the USC, but there isn't.). That was the creative fabrication used to justify many things not guaranteed by the constitution.
Someone pointing this out isn't saying any of those topics aren't just or shouldn't exist. What (at least I, and I think flow) they are saying is that somewhere along the line we lost the owner's manual for the constitution and how it's supposed to work.....If we've reached the point where a right to privacy should be guaranteed by the constitution, then it's time to have a convention to put it in there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: There is no privacy right in the 14th.
Jun 24, 2022, 5:58 PM
|
|
Once upon a time there was a Justice named Harlan who brilliantly conceived the penumbras in Griswold v Connecticut.
This new lot doesn’t much care for his penumbras.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I don't know if it was brilliant, but it was certainly
Jun 24, 2022, 6:08 PM
|
|
creative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I don't think the constitution ever had an owner's manual
Jun 24, 2022, 6:19 PM
[ in reply to There is no privacy right in the 14th. ] |
|
Part of the reason for the Supreme Court to exist as part of the third branch is to interpret the Constitution. That, (along with the 9th amendment) illustrates how knowingly limited the Founding Fathers knew the Constitution was as an "owner's manual" for the country.
The interpretation of a right to privacy has been around since at least Griswold (1965) and has been a precedent for many other cases that this court's "interpretation" now opens the door for reversing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I don't think the constitution ever had an owner's manual
Jun 24, 2022, 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155805]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65783
Joined: 5/6/13
|
We agree about the SC's reason for existence.
Jun 24, 2022, 6:31 PM
[ in reply to I don't think the constitution ever had an owner's manual ] |
|
I just think you can't interpret something that isn't there, and these justices in the majority seem to as well.
We would put more of the (highly shirked) burden back on the legislative branch if more things like this were punted back to Senators and Representatives (State and US) to make tough choices on and decide upon, and then the citizenry could decide with their votes whether they liked the votes their elected representatives were making for them rather than hoping a small body of lifetime appointees creatively interpreted Constitutional non-entities in their favor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I understand that point of view and respect it.
Jun 24, 2022, 6:45 PM
|
|
But I think interpreting something that isn't there in the constitution is a big part of why the Supreme Court exists and how it operates. The fact we have the 9th Amendment gives clear evidence to the idea that rights exist outside the Constitution, and a right to privacy, as has been interpreted for decades would certainly fit under that Amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It's been interpreted to be part of the personal liberty
Jun 24, 2022, 7:40 PM
|
|
Similar to how the presumption of innocence isn't contextually found in the constitution but is a critical right we have as citizens to have a fair trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
It is not similar at all...
Jun 24, 2022, 8:36 PM
|
|
In that the presumption of innocence had been a long-standing legal tradition for a very long time prior to Cofin and is a very direct for to due process and fair trial.
Until Roe, there had not been any legal tradition to a right to privacy prior to Roe and the courtsnhad plenty of opportunity to have recognized that right prior to Roe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
They are similar in that they both are not textual
Jun 24, 2022, 8:52 PM
|
|
to the Constitution. That's the basis of your argument and others arguing that "the right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution as written so it does not exist. If that were how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution then the presumption of innocence would not exist either.
Now if your argument is changing to that the length of time that the presumption of innocence has been precedent in the law versus the right to privacy makes it more worthwhile or different, then okay, but let's just clarify that it is a different argument.
As for the precedent argument regarding the right to privacy, it goes back to Griswold in 1965, not Roe (1972).
The 9th amendment makes it clear there are enumerated rights that the Constitution doesn't include so, again, while I respect your argument on this, I don't see it as a winnable one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
I'll cite Scalia....
Jun 24, 2022, 9:11 PM
|
|
“the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Which he cited in his dissent of Troxel...
Jun 24, 2022, 9:37 PM
|
|
Which was the application of the 14th amendment to a case asking if parents have individual (parental) rights to raise their kids. Scalia was part of the 3 justices who said the 14th amendment would not apply (6 said it did).
That was his interpretation of the 9th and maybe that also means he was against the presumption of innocence. I haven't researched him enough to know one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16240]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12779
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: It's not granting those powers to the federal government
Jun 24, 2022, 10:43 PM
[ in reply to It's not granting those powers to the federal government ] |
|
Question. How does the unborn garner greater rights than a person 'born or naturalized in the US', which the 14th goes on to delineate as citizens. I know of no current statute in any state or federal institution that grants citizenship to a fetus. Birth certificates have been the the age-old, time-tested stamp of entry into the fold. How is there an affected party here to prevent an individual from making a personal choice about their own life, health, and livelihood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
A quote that sums up my feelings on activism
Jun 24, 2022, 4:57 PM
[ in reply to undoing activism is not activism*** ] |
|
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
The due process clause of the 14th amendment is the perfect illustration of this idea and conservative justices appear to be ready to rip it to shreds. This court is using activism to upend decades of evolved thinking that extended rights not enumerated in the constitution.
This is all about politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12155
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 2:12 PM
|
|
It's ok to kill someone, as long as you do it in private.
This will, at least, make baby killin' a more democratic decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16240]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12779
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 3:17 PM
|
|
A fetus is not someone. It is a potential someone that is wholly dependent on its living host for all aspects of development into a someone. Once this potential someone reaches a point of viability, where it is no longer solely dependent on its host to operate and develop, then it could be considered a someone. Up to that point, the only true someone in the picture is the host. With this ruling, that actual someone was just stripped of their ability to make decisions for themselves regarding their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit, in certain parts of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14101
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 3:19 PM
|
|
That’s a good precedent to kill everyone that is on welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16240]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12779
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 3:23 PM
|
|
Good luck with finding someone to make you a cheeseburger or pick up your trash with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12155
Joined: 9/1/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16240]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12779
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 4:24 PM
|
|
Twisting words I see into something that was not stated.
A new born baby does not require its host and only its host to live. Same as a premature baby in an incubator that has obviously reached the point of viability, or it wouldn't be in an incubator, it would be on ice. These are someones you speak of. Anyone can care for this actual person, this someone, at this stage. Prior to viability, they are not someones, only potential someones reliant wholly and exclusively on a single host.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12155
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 4:37 PM
|
|
Seems like a very narrow definition of viable.
Call it a Fetus (Latin for offspring) or a baby. A life is being ended. As far as that being a 'someone' or not, that's just your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22387]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31281
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Religion and guns are the dominant "rights" of
Jun 24, 2022, 2:16 PM
|
|
US citizens usurping all others, based upon what we have seen from the Supreme Court over the last 20ish years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12155
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Religion and guns are the dominant "rights" of
Jun 24, 2022, 2:26 PM
|
|
Well they are ranked 1 and 2 in the Bill of Rights. Please, direct me to the amendment for abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
There isn't....not in such broad/general terms at least....
Jun 24, 2022, 2:25 PM
|
|
there are privacy rights spelled out in the Constitution (unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination for example).
But there is no express right to privacy listed in the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1043]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2075
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: The right to privacy. This SCOTUS is pretty much acknowledging there’s no such thing.
Jun 24, 2022, 2:36 PM
|
|
There actually isn't a specific right to privacy in the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35284
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Um, yes. I know.
Jun 24, 2022, 6:18 PM
|
|
Roe has always been terrible from a law standpoint. Politics aside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15063
Joined: 8/6/10
|
man I'm enjoying all this salt from hypocrites who just a
Jun 24, 2022, 4:24 PM
|
|
few months ago (and probably still, morons) were calling for vaccine mandates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2594]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1513
Joined: 12/17/21
|
The problem is we are governed by a
Jun 24, 2022, 6:23 PM
|
|
document that is almost 250 years old. Many things are still relevant today but everything isn’t. Times change and everything that happens 250 years later could not have been anticipated. I agree with wildblulou in his statements. I’m a mom and never had an abortion but believe women should have a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15063
Joined: 8/6/10
|
I agree, we should scrap the con and the entire fedgov***
Jun 24, 2022, 7:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37176
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35284
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not a single TU. Dayum. Tough crowd.
Jun 24, 2022, 6:19 PM
|
|
Ima stop casting my pearls up in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
There ya go.***
Jun 24, 2022, 6:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35284
Joined: 11/30/98
|
My man.***
Jun 24, 2022, 6:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18018]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30152
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Re: My man.***
Jun 24, 2022, 7:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 58
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
