No dontomasso, you are absolutely wrong on this. Calling Roe good case law is like saying Dred Scott v Sanford was.
A right to privacy has never been absolute and has never entailed everything. Do you have a right to beat your children or your wife so long as it's done behind closed doors? Can you build a nuclear weapon or develop anthrax in privacy? It was also an argument slave owners used to defend the institution ("If you don't like slavery, don't buy a slave!") It's a typical example of left-wing insanity. Privacy has to have reasonable limits, and it is reasonable that privacy cannot be a cover for the taking of innocent human life.
Well, while you may not consider Thomas a scholar, there can be no doubt that White, Rehnquist, Roberts, Scalia and Alito were/are. Liberals who disagreed with Roe included John Hart Ely, Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Kermit Roosevelt, Alan Dershowitz, Eugene Volokh, Edward Lazarus, Hadley Arkes, etc.
I brought in McCorvey to show that the case was based on fraud and deception.
Where do I say Roe is "good case law?"
The right to privacy was established in Griswold under the legal fiction that the "penumbra" of rights created by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment established this right. This has come under severe criticism from the beginning. The whole "penumbra" thing was invented by Justice Douglas and adopted by the Warren court at the height of its powers. From that roe evolved.
In other words, they are completely non-textual, ideological made-up "rights" that came from the radical liberal justices in the 1970s. You think liberals would have learned from the slaughterhouse cases and Lochner that is just as dangerous in the other direction.
And it is not either you are for this new judicial legislator superbody or you are for banning contraceptives. The political process, as pointed out and predicted by the dissent, would have taken care of this issue on its own. There isn't a state in the union, despite your conspiracies, that would pass anything even resembling the Griswald statute today because of political pressure. Everyone recognized Griswald was a paints-on-head retarded statute, but decent justices realized that court cannot invent new rights to fix statutory shortcomings. The court radically overreached politically in the 70s with Roe and Griswald. It culminated in the Lawerence decision that decided the founders wrote the constitution to protect anal ex under the pretend right to privacy. Another issue that the political process would have solved on its own.
If you don't like it amend the constitution.
Last edited by LittleNicky; 09/25/1311:25 AM.
Should probably ask Mr. Kierney. I guess if you're Italian, you should be in prison. I've read the RICO Act, and I can tell you it's more appropriate... for some of those guys over in Washington than it is for me or any of my fellas here
