Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was very specific; cite a SCOTUS case before Griswold that established a generalized Right To Privacy in the U.S. Constitution.
Since apparently you will not read Justice Hugo Black's dissent in Griswold, let me highlight two passages.
"The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a n-i-g-g-a-rdly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given."
"This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used."
"For these reasons, I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional "right of privacy" as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to. invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons, I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional."
It was largely Hugo Black's dissent that RGB hung her hat on the vulnerability of Roe
I wonder if you feel the same about the constitutional "right to vote” for formerly enslaved people & women? “As though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the “right to vote” of individuals.”
As for the “right of privacy”? The Right to Privacy is a law review article written by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, & published in the 1890 Harvard Law Review.[1] It is "one of the most influential essays in the history of American law"[2] and is widely regarded as the first publication in the United States to advocate a right to privacy,[3] articulating that right primarily as a "right to be let alone".
Kind of like pro abortion folks here, but just 9 votes count, and 5 votes that matter will rule the day and return the issue to the states as should always be the case.
Clara, your posts are nuts. Stay terrified that your neighbor is going to accuse you of having an abortion.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.... REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
If you are going with the "anyone can accuse anyone of anything" scenario that is true of EVERYTHING.
So you should be terrified 24/7/365/to infinity of EVERYTHING.
Many pro-abortion advocates are absolutely unhinged. No logic. No critical thinking skills. Just REEEEEEEEEE... REEEEEEEEEEE... It's harder to kill babies now... REEEEEEEE... The world is ending!!!....
Although a little off topic the geek in me wanted to jump in to clarify the bolded statement above. SCOTUS also reviews cases that are not based on Constitutional rights. Most notably, they are the final decider on the interpretation of federal laws similar to a state's supreme court with respect to state laws. SCOTUS also has jurisdiction over disputes between states and certain other subject matters.
SCOTUS examines it, though, through the lens of whether or not a Constitutional Right has been violated, as it's their sworn duty to support and defend the US Constitution.
Not if the case has nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Here is but one example, Kelly v. United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1059_e2p3.pdf The words "Constitution" and "constitutional" aren't even used anywhere in the opinion because it revolved around interpretation of a federal statute, not the Constitution. That's my only point - that their jurisdiction is not limited to Constitutional cases.
The federal government had NO business sticking their nose and overriding the people and the democratic process of making law. This country was fine before 1973. Don't act like without 7 judges making law We wouldn't know what to do. We need 7 Judges to save us.
What We don't want is 7 elite people on the bench making laws and shoving it down the throats of 340 million people and the unborn.
No one had to get an illegal abortion. Doing so is a foolish choice. Make bad choices = strong possibility you'll suffer bad consequences. How have some people not yet learned that fact of life?
Many pro-abortion advocates are absolutely unhinged. No logic. No critical thinking skills. Just REEEEEEEEEE... REEEEEEEEEEE... It's harder to kill babies now... REEEEEEEE... The world is ending!!!....
Many pro-abortion advocates are absolutely unhinged. No logic. No critical thinking skills. Just REEEEEEEEEE... REEEEEEEEEEE... It's harder to kill babies now... REEEEEEEE... The world is ending!!!....
The federal government had NO business sticking their nose and overriding the people and the democratic process of making law. This country was fine before 1973. Don't act like without 7 judges making law We wouldn't know what to do. We need 7 Judges to save us.
What We don't want is 7 elite people on the bench making laws and shoving it down the throats of 340 million people and the unborn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Exactly correct.
Do you feel the same about overturning Plessy v. Ferguson? It took a century.
October 1954: President Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan to the Supreme Court.
After the sudden death of Justice Jackson, President Eisenhower nominated John Marshall Harlan, the grandson of the lone dissenter in Plessy, to fill the vacancy. After long hearings before the Senate, Harlan was finally sworn in as an Associate Justice in March of 1955.
Timeline of Events Leading to the Brown v. Board of Education Decision of 1954
Every scenario you and your compadres are offering up are extreme examples.
What if a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy (that was documented in the hospital, incidentally) is accused by her coworkers? (You do realize that only 2% of pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies, right?)
What if all the tens of thousands of 12 year olds who are raped AND become pregnant are denied abortions? I’m still waiting on numbers from you.
What if all the tens of thousands of women who are raped multiple times AND become pregnant each time
are denied abortions?
You said you are an expert statistician. Give me the odds on those scenarios.
Meanwhile, you don’t seem at all concerned that roughly 98.5% of abortions are due to people being stupid, careless, and irresponsible.
Also unless you go way back in my post history—which would be a bit creepy—you don’t know what state I live in nor my stance on gun regulations.
THAT is the problem pro-abortion advocates should be addressing instead of fighting for the right to kill. Priorities are seriously f-ed up when killing is so highly prioritized over prevention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
