Bush2 Supreme Court -- what else goes along with Roe v Wade?

[techweenie]

Roberts has stated he'd like to see Roe v Wade 'overturned.'

Roe v Wade was adjudged on an implied right to privacy. Something not explicitly stated in the constitution. Since Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are "originalists," they believe we cannot interpret (I'm simplifying the position here) what the framers of the constitution implied or would have intended in circumstances that have subsequently developed (like government involvement in nearly every aspect of life).

So if Roe v Wade is the target, the right to privacy must be explicitly struck down. What will that lead to?

I believe that in pulling the privacy underpinnings out from under Wade, the Supreme Court will quite likely cause unintended consequences. Most threatening is that the movement toward unifying databases on citizens under the federal government will move forward, unimpeded. It's already mostly there. It’s not an Orwellian fantasy to project this a little further into a nightmare.

Imagine a citizen’s file within, say HEW, one day containing health history, voting history, service history, employment history, credit history, fingerprints, emails, and yes, DNA information. Maybe that's fine on all counts for some of the 'why should I care, I've done nothing wrong' crowd. But anyone who has dealt with a mistaken entry in their credit record knows the error rate on this type of database is not small enough, and correcting wrong data is tough enough within private enterprise when you have (some) law on your side. Now put that power in the hands of 900,000 bureaucrats...

Has anyone seen "Brazil?"

[Mulhollanddose]

Maybe it is about time we allowed the people the right to vote and make their own decision regarding abortion...Roe v. Wade was a direct violation of the Constitution and Roe never had an abortion...The infanticide left's weakness in position is further illustrated by them calling it a "reproductive rights" issue, when NOBODY has EVER stopped or called for legislation for or against the right to reproduce (their flowery smoke-screen suggests they are hiding something).

The Supreme Court overstepped themselves on Roe v. Wade, they are to INTERPRET the law, not make it...Worst case scenario, should Roe be overturned, is that the states still have legalized profiteering from the murder of babies.

This obviously has moral motivation, but primarily this is an issue of the prevention of a tyrannical judiciary, writing legislation from the bench...in direct violation of separation of powers.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Maybe it is about time we allowed the people the right to vote and make their own decision regarding abortion...Roe v. Wade was a direct violation of the Constitution and Roe never had an abortion...The infanticide left's weakness in position is further illustrated by them calling it a "reproductive rights" issue, when NOBODY has EVER stopped or called for legislation for or against the right to reproduce (their flowery smoke-screen suggests they are hiding something).

The Supreme Court overstepped themselves on Roe v. Wade, they are to INTERPRET the law, not make it...Worst case scenario, should Roe be overturned, is that the states still have legalized profiteering from the murder of babies.

This obviously has moral motivation, but primarily this is an issue of the prevention of a tyrannical judiciary, writing legislation from the bench...in direct violation of separation of powers.

Can't make heads or tails out of your first paragraph, but the contention in the second that states are profiteering from abortion is really puzzling.

The third paragraph is a good issue to discuss: can you imagine what total chaos will result if the new court revisits prior rulings and overturns great numbers of them on the basis of violating principles of originalism? This is a course of action Thomas has openly endorsed.

[Tyson Schmidt]

Originally posted by techweenie

The third paragraph is a good issue to discuss: can you imagine what total chaos will result if the new court revisits prior rulings and overturns great numbers of them on the basis of violating principles of originalism? This is a course of action Thomas has openly endorsed.

Just let me know in advance about the book burnings. I love a good weenie roast!

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Tyson Schmidt
Just let me know in advance about the book burnings. I love a good weenie roast!

Hey!

HEY!

Ow!

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Maybe it is about time we allowed the people the right to vote and make their own decision regarding abortion...Roe v. Wade was a direct violation of the Constitution and Roe never had an abortion...The infanticide left's weakness in position is further illustrated by them calling it a "reproductive rights" issue, when NOBODY has EVER stopped or called for legislation for or against the right to reproduce (their flowery smoke-screen suggests they are hiding something).

I started a reply to this post, which was almost identical to yours. I agree completely, this should be left to the people to decide, not the courts. If enough people vote in favor of killing babies, well, that's just the way it will be then. I won't complain.

[techweenie]

The issue here really isn't Roe v Wade, because that's the main target. Bush won't proffer any nominees that don't want to strike it down.

The real issue I wanted to discuss here is whether anyone is concerned that 'implied privacy' underpinnings will topple a wide range of protections we enjoy?

The majority of states have privacy clauses in their laws. But the federal government only has the implied right.

[legion]

Privacy is a tricky issue.

Putting it in the constitution could choke commerce. (No business could collect any personally identifiable info. Industries like insurance couldn't exist.)

Leaving it completely out has risks, as Techweenie has pointed out.

Sounds like a case for one of those classic "balancing" tests that the Supreme Court loves to create.

[Mulhollanddose]

People seem to be mesmerized by the majesty of the Supreme Court...Guess what?...They are lawyers, humans, flawed and finite...In this case they are also unaccountable and, therefore, should not have powers to write laws from the bench.

The Founders formulated the separation of powers for a reason, and explicitly warned against a tyrannical judiciary...This is something the left seems to conveniently forget in their lip-service defense of the Constitution; understandable given the only way they can get their way is by the neo-tyranny of fiat.

[RallyJon]

Lot's of people "state" that they'd like to see Roe v Wade overturned in a context that makes it politically advantageous to say so. It's not clear how many of those who make public proclamations really mean it.

Of all the right wing zealots Bush could have nominated, he picks a guy who is barely on that side of the fence (if at all).

Hmm.

[Moses]

Originally posted by techweenie


The majority of states have privacy clauses in their laws. But the federal government only has the implied right.

I have no problem with that. It seems to me that a nation filled with people of divergent values and dreams should be allowed to construct laws that reflect the local culture. As a nation we are joined by our constitution and hopefully a shared love of freedom.

I have no problem with a nation where it may be legal to smoke pot in Oregon, but illegal to smoke a cigarette in Utah.

[stevepaa]

Ah, but would you allow Utah to prosecute one of their citizens because he smoked a cigarette on vacation in Hawaii?

[Moses]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Ah, but would you allow Utah to prosecute one of their citizens because he smoked a cigarette on vacation in Hawaii?

For years states had different drinking ages, speed limits, tax laws. It's all good. Find a state filled with like-minded people and move there. America! Gotta love it.

[speedkillz]

If men were the ones to have babies...this would never have been an issue. With big brother watching every move...we are all like mice in a cage.

[stevepaa]

I thought that some women were prosecuted for having abortions in nearby states? Am I wrong on that?

[Moses]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I thought that some women were prosecuted for having abortions in nearby states? Am I wrong on that?

I know of no state that can rightfully claim jurisdiction over events in another state.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by techweenie
I believe that in pulling the privacy underpinnings out from under Wade, the Supreme Court will quite likely cause unintended consequences. Most threatening is that the movement toward unifying databases on citizens under the federal government will move forward, unimpeded. It's already mostly there. It’s not an Orwellian fantasy to project this a little further into a nightmare.

You can start your conspiracy back in 1994 with Clinton's little diddy...

In 1994 President Clinton signed the Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), also known as the digital telephony bill. This bill requires regional telephone service providers to work with the FBI in establishing a standard interface for law enforcement to use when tapping a phone line. Law enforcement can already tap copper phone lines, but new technology in the form of digital fiber optics, smart call services like call forwarding, and wireless cellular and PCS communications, left FBI wiretappers in the dust - hence, the campaign for greater wiretapping capability.

When CALEA passed in 1994, it promised to reimburse regional carriers for embedding a common law enforcement interface into the backbone of their call switching networks. Instead of restoring law enforcement to their old vantage ground, the new requirements would give police immediate access into the nerve center of the regional telephone carrier - a massive leap past what they had before. Where before law enforcement had to work to find the correct copper wire to tap into, now they are asking for the equivalent of requiring every new home to be built with listening devices in the walls in case they want to eavesdrop someday. The capabilities of the next century's system of surveillance are still being hammered out and the following proposals are on the table.

The above is obviously from a right-wing website...Seems the lefty media sorta forgot to focus on it...So, get this, Clinton made this bugging technology mandatory on ALL cell phones...except his and his buddies I am sure.

Oh, BTW...This was his rationale..."national security" from a "terrorist threat".

http://www.thewinds.org/1997/06/wiretap.html


What about that 4th Amendment techweenie?...Call up Babs Boxer and Feinswine and get them an ear-full.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I thought that some women were prosecuted for having abortions in nearby states? Am I wrong on that?

Yes, you are wrong...scare tactic, just like the overblown theory of "back-alley abortions."

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You can start your conspiracy back in 1994 with Clinton's little diddy...

In 1994 President Clinton signed the Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), also known as the digital telephony bill. This bill requires regional telephone service providers to work with the FBI in establishing a standard interface for law enforcement to use when tapping a phone line. Law enforcement can already tap copper phone lines, but new technology in the form of digital fiber optics, smart call services like call forwarding, and wireless cellular and PCS communications, left FBI wiretappers in the dust - hence, the campaign for greater wiretapping capability.

When CALEA passed in 1994, it promised to reimburse regional carriers for embedding a common law enforcement interface into the backbone of their call switching networks. Instead of restoring law enforcement to their old vantage ground, the new requirements would give police immediate access into the nerve center of the regional telephone carrier - a massive leap past what they had before. Where before law enforcement had to work to find the correct copper wire to tap into, now they are asking for the equivalent of requiring every new home to be built with listening devices in the walls in case they want to eavesdrop someday. The capabilities of the next century's system of surveillance are still being hammered out and the following proposals are on the table.

The above is obviously from a right-wing website...Seems the lefty media sorta forgot to focus on it...So, get this, Clinton made this bugging technology mandatory on ALL cell phones...except his and his buddies I am sure.

Oh, BTW...This was his rationale..."national security" from a "terrorist threat".

http://www.thewinds.org/1997/06/wiretap.html

What about that 4th Amendment techweenie?...Call up Babs Boxer and Feinswine and get them an ear-full.

Yes, and under Clinton, it still required a judge's order. Now under Bush it does not. I'm pretty sure Babs and Dianne tried to keep the "Patriot" Act provisions from continuing, but guess who has the majority? The Big Brother boys.

[Mulhollanddose]

Babs and Diane are from the party of concentration camps for Japs...The party of "Uncle Joe" aint such a bad guy...The party of "Republicans are racist. Robert Byrd?...aw, that whole KKK thing was just a youthful indiscretion."...The party of "lets bomb Serbia, seems like we need to distract the country, we will let the next adminstration deal with terrorism."...The party of "we really f'ed up in New Orleans...quick!...blame the Republicans!"