I think you mean upscale shopping center. Lets not be like the liberals
and get everything just a little bit wrong enough to suit our agenda.
To me, "liberal" means "misguided". A liberal judge is a scary, scary
No, you're wrong. Our government is elected and they have limited
powers as well as checks and balances. A liberal bench is very
dangerous to everyone. The courts should be reasonably predictable;
only as ambiguous as the laws they enforce. When judges go off ruling
based on their own ideas they have the power to do tremendous damage on
Your understanding (?) of the American system of government
is seriously screwed up. The judicial branch's main function is to
resolve constitutional and legislative ambiguity, not maintain or
support it. And the fact they are not accountable to the legislative
and executive branches is the main check and balance on these
other two branches.
When we have a case, as today, where the views of the majority
of Americans are not being represented on many issues either in
Congress or the White House, where much of the legislation
passed by these two bodies is constitutionally questionable at best,
and where no electoral alternatives exist for the people, the function
of the judicial branch is especially critical. The radical right is now
focusing their attack on the courts because it is the last obstacle to
implemention of their horribly narrow and in many cases
In what regard? E.g. 85% of the American people want
abortion kept legal in some or all cases, and the left respects
Roe v. Wade, while the right regards the decision as "judicial
activism" and wants it overturned.
This same kind of disregard for the will of the majority holds
true on a wide range of other issues, from same-sex civil unions
to prayer in public schools to flag burning to 100 other things.
What the american people want is not law. 85% of american people may
want to commit adultery or be able to drive when they are hammered out
of their minds or have sex in public places. You're making the opposite
case you're trying to make. Judges are supposed to rule on law, not on
sentiment. Thats exactly the point.
What you don't "get" is that the "right" considers Roe v Wade judicial
activism because the bench is infering something (privacy) that isn't
explictly in our constitution. You can argue that they made up
"privacy" to suit their agenda, which was to legalize abortion. I don't
want to get in a debate about the right of mothers vs the rights of the
unborn; you can argue either and not be wrong. But there is no explicit
right to privacy. Not all opponents of R vs W want to make abortion
illegal, and what most liberals don't get is that repealing Roe V Wade
won't make abortion illegal; it just makes it a State rather than a
constitutional issue. Conservatives just want the constitution to be
interpreted to the letter rather than as just a guidline. Technically
constitutional law requires that, and decisions like Roe V Wade are
arguably outside that level of interpretation.
First,just because a right is not specifically listed in the
Constitution,that does NOT mean the right does not exist.
Government CLEARLY should not be regulating every aspect of our lives.
People seem to forget that the Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT,not
IMO,a "right to privacy" DOES exist,it begins in the 4th Amendment;"the
right to be secure in their persons",and in the 5th;"nor be deprived of
life,liberty,or property without due process of law".
Finally,there's Amendment 9;"The enumeration in the Constitution,of certain
rights,shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
To drag this back into semi-relevence, since "HOME" appears in
the same comma-separated list as your "PERSON", does that mean
that building codes and zoning ordinaces are unconstitutional,
Actually,the word "home" does NOT occur,the word is "houses".
I suspect building codes and zoning would be "due process of law".
I note you snipped out the 9th Amendment,and made no comment on
the Constitution being a limit on -government-,not the people.
You appear to have tossed that phrase out as a magic talisman,
devoid of all semantic content or context. "due process of law"
is a description of what is necessary to take something (a right
and or a property) away from someone. It is not only NOT
permission for the government to take or control something,
it is a tacit admission that, under normal circumstances,
the government HAS no such permission.
It's got nothing to do with regulating how people treat
their properties. It just means that when the police force
takes your guns away for "evidence", and then refuse to
give them back even when no charges materialize, they are
Because, while true, it's not particularly relevent to any of
the topics under discussion.
In any case, still, since "houses" and "persons" appear to
be treated more or less in parallel throughout the constitution,
how is it that this mysterious "privacy" right means that
no government agency ever can tell me what I'm allowed and
not allowed to do with my "person" (body), but it doesn't
mean that no government agency can ever tell me what I'm
allowed and not allowed to do with my "house" (home)?
Clearly, one of three things must be true:
(1) The protection for your "person" is *NOT* meant to
be the same as the protection for your "house",
(2) The protection for your "house" is absolute, and
therefore building codes and zoning ordinances are
(3) The protection for your "person" is *NOT* absolute,
and therefore the constitution does not bar
anti-abortion laws, or
(4) There is some qualitative distiction between a law
saying I'm not allowed to rip walls out of my
house without permission from the state, and
a law that says I'm not allowed to rip a
baby out of my womb without permission from
"Due process of law" means that no right is absolute,that one can have
their rights restricted or denied PROVIDED there is just cause;as provided
by law.But there are limits on how far laws can go.
Sure it is;the claim that there is no "right to privacy",as if all rights
MUST be listed in the Constitution.
Why should one's house get better protection from government than one's own
The entire concept of the Constitution is to limit or restrict the power
government has over it's citizens. A "right to privacy" would be in concord
with that concept.
The Constitution does not grant rights.Rights pre-exist the Constitution.
CERTAIN rights were given specific mention and specific limits *to
That does NOT mean they are the only rights of the People.
And I DID say: "as if all rights MUST be listed in the Constitution".
The function of the supreme court is not to protect your rights.
The function of the supreme court is to protect/enforce the
constitution. The question before the supreme court was
not "do women have a right to an abortion", but "does the
constitution prevent states from outlawing abortion".
And the answer to the first question may well be "yes".
But the answer to the second question, to anyone who
both believes in a rule of law, and knows what that means,
And so, in that decision, the SCOTUS gave a correct
answer to the wrong question.. (What should be), and
the wrong answer to the question that was before them,
(what does the law require)
Nonsense. The court said, correctly, that implicit privacy
rights in certain areas (procreation, marriage, contraception
etc) do exist in the Constitution, and have been recognized
and protected by other federal and state courts since at
Roe v. Wade was an incorrect decision, but for reasons that
are probably entirely opposite to what you might think. The
court erred by giving the state a foot in the door on this issue.
Had they not done so, we likely would not be seeing the
continuation of the radical right's agenda to outlaw all
abortions under all circumstances (read the current platform
of the Republican Party). Simply put, the state does not have
unwanted pregnancies, it does not go through the pains of
pregnancy and childbirth. Therefore they have no right to
dictate to any woman (or family) that she will carry a
pregnancy to term. Their error was making an artificial and
completely arbitrary distinction between the state's supposed
interest before fetal viability and after. The state HAS no
interest in unwanted pregnancies.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.