****************

By Old Man Turtle, June 5 at 6:23 pm

“”“Maybe the resolution to the conundrum “Shenonymous” poses
at the end of a comment below will be found in the now
generally accepted (by the professionals, at-least) biological fact
that there is simply no such thing in this world as a specifically
and uniquely “human” “problem.”  So “hope” simply can’t be
factored-into anything actually present here except for certain
seductive imaginary conceits which are the favorite haunts of
those who like to think there is something preternaturally
“special” about people, singly and/or altogether.”“”
*****************

I have to say that there is, simply for the fact that almost
7,000,000,000 people can’t be healthy for the environment,
when the impact of each individual is concerned; and what the
emotions do to direct human actions. That will be cause and
effect in the demise of humans and a lot more life species
because greed has allowed a certain % age of people to
commandeer the rights of all or at least more than an equitable
share of all other things.

And I would say that the collective foot print, being corporations
using those abilities to massively collect and manipulate the
planet just makes the whole idea of any sustainable growth for
those particular entities impossible. But what will make it a
totally non unique problem is how nature, gaia or the ‘wrath of
god’ will simply take its part with no prejudicial bias about
saving goldman sachs, the u.s. military, the whole world, any of
it.

One of my random thoughts is that if 10% of the people are
consider criminal or evil, then there are about 700,000,000 of
them walking in our midst, or hiding out in their offices
performing their wicked deeds on the rest of us which is rather
like a certain kind of cannibalism.

Here are the last three paragraphs from Justice Souter’s Harvard speech: 

So, it is tempting to dismiss the critical rhetoric of law making and activism as simply a rejection of at least some of the hopes we profess to share as the American people. But there is one thing more. I have to believe that something deeper is involved, and that behind most dreams of a simpler Constitution lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair reading model seems to promise. And who has not felt that same hunger? Is there any one of us who has not lived through moments, if not years, of longing for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchangeable in human institutions? I don’t forget my own longings which heartily resisted the pronouncement of Justice Holmes, which I read as an undergraduate, that certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.

But I have come to understand that he was right, and by the same token I understand that I differ from the critics I’ve described not merely in seeing the patent wisdom of the Brown decision, or in espousing the rule excluding unlawfully seized evidence, or in understanding the scope of habeas corpus. Where I suspect we differ most fundamentally is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control it is possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason that respects the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for the living.

That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

icebar, when did you escape from Sheppard Pratt?

Icechar:

So long!

We live in a land where the Peasant Populace is milked for Capital like cows and where Genteel Peasants are pretenders to Aristocratic and Middle Class status by borrowing Capital that has been milked from their own consumption and living in the Capital Assets of the Aristocracy and Middle Class for month to month interest payments that they recognize as ownership, rather than rent, while in reality all they are is caretakers for Capital Assets that provide a Revenue Stream to the Privatized Capitalist Overlords that control the whole dumb show.  This is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with freedom and justice for all; the American Dream.

It is time for a change.

It is time for American Reality to replace the American Dream.

It is time for Social Capital and Socialized Capitalism, so that the populace, as a whole can share in the benefit of Capital and not be left with nothing more than the amorphous nonsense of the American Dream.

****************

““By icechar, June 5 at 10:08 pm #
Dang Samo your a queer(teabagging???YUK!!!)???
*****************

You’re so far ahead of yourself that you don’t even understand
what you read. My reference was to teabaggers being part of the
neocon gang, but actually from what I have read on the ‘tea
party’ is an insult to the beverage itself and I for the life of me I
haven’t heard one consistent thing from the tea party that would
make me think I would want to be a part of them. Kind of like
listening to a libertarian as rand paul calling the lobbyists crooks
bribing congress, federal employees and the scotus and then
double talking his ideology on discrimination. I don’t trust any
of them to walk my poor old dead grandmother across the
street. And if you are a neocon then keep it to yourself.

Thomas is an angry black man whose objectivity is compromised by his antipathy for liberals, equal opportunity whites, and unyielding women. Scalia and Alito are pro-plutocrats. Roberts is an arrogant smirking ideologue who for some reason thinks he is superior to all others, especially the politicians who approved his appointment.

You said “true American Hawks, most of them are dead now.” 
Most?  Whose left? Uh, right?  Who is left alive?  Freedom?
They don’t have a corner on it.  Most Americans I know, good old
union member Americans (yeah, I know most unions are now pretty
impotent, but they will be back), my uncles, were blue collars and
as hot American blooded as any Hawk.  And all the academics I
know would scream bloody murder if their academic freedom was
so much as brushed.  I would too! So it infuriates me that some
right-wing conservatives would claim freedom as theirs alone.  But
how does one balance liberty and egalitarianism and freedom?  It is
a three strand tightrope.  And I’m not as young as you might
imagine.  Just didn’t get with the program until mid life.  So I’m
catching up.  But I am eating everybody else’s dirt.  But not for too
long as I’m a quick study.

****************

It is just as curiously incidental that not more than 3 weeks ago
there was a cartoon somewhere that illustrated what was once a
republic of democracy, and I think the teabaggers or neocons
have reclaimed this country as a ‘constitutional republic’.

Maybe this was it:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/america-is-a-
constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy—-updated/blog-
333833/

And not to be too adamant about this whole thing, but I just
cannot help but think that what a lot of us understand is a one
party political system, it can rather well be referred to as the
American Communist party because no matter how many
liberals, moderates, lefties or what other name brand jargon you
use, those crooks that have taken over this country are
absolutely extremely anal retentive, heartless, criminal, evil,
down to the core greedy conservative crap. This especially is
true because just what in the hell has a supposed majority of
‘democrats’ ever done that has even hinted at ending and
reversing the disasters and crises in this country? And, besides a
couple of dozen, if that many, members of congress are helping
the people and not their own financial positions.

You are wrong icechar – well not totally…while I agree the leftists
are eating themselves up, the right is starting to do it too trying
to jockey the absolute best candidate who can demagogue them-
selves into the White House or Congress.  It is almost a free-for-all,
except it is lots and lots of free money.  Hahahaha – pretty soon the
escapees Bedlam kept by Wall Street will have eaten themselves up
and what’s leftovers and rightovers will be served for lunch.  Oh yeah,
the Hawks are the biggest vultures of all.  They want the whole enchilada
and they lick the plate.  No crumbs for The American Pop…u,,,la…tion.

****************

icechair, well I have a right still, I hope, unless those 5 heathen
devil incubus haven’t taken that away from me, to express my
disgust in what I now called the CBPscotus, uh, cbp stand for
corporate bought and paid for scotus. And I probably foolishly
and naively think that if the left gain the ‘upper hand’ that those
decisions coming from the bench are more in favor of the
people instead of the nonentity of corporate america.

Your personal image is unique, does that imply you’re a commie
in alabama? If so keep you head down and watch your back,
cause I’m sure bama ain’t a safe haven for commies or socialists.

****************

“Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito
compose the Court’s conservative wing. Justices Stevens,
Ginsburg, and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court’s
liberal wing. Kennedy the swing vote or noted to vote liberal
occasionally.” (from wikipedia)

What is of concern are those people appointed and shuffled
through conformation who like the five federalists will always
have the 5-4 edge, for a good while anyway. So that, to me, has
to be a reason for selecting these thugs, when a dip sh*t like w
is in office, he can be told who to appoint, to further certain
agendas for certain groups, most clearly the latest debacle was
the ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission’ giving the
corporations ‘rights’ to contribute to not just a person running
for office unlimited amounts of money’(truly makes our
government a bought and paid for one) but to contribute to
getting some cause passed in elections. Now we are faced with
another appointee, kagan, who seems to be on the doubtful side
of being a good scj.

So even if the leaning shifts to the other side, and that will be
quite a while as the latest versions appointed by conservatives
all seem young enough to hold their seats for a few more
decades, whose to say how a left leaning court will really be
because as with taxes, they don’t just end, once the court makes
a decision such as ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission’ it will be just as hard to overturn that as to
overturn a tax.

An awful sign for this country when the corporations tell the
judges what they want, politely called, ‘lobbying’, really bribery
of the judiciary of the u.s.

Kudos for Souter calling out traitor scalia for his abhorrent
ideology.

Anti-commie bastards also want to kill the first amendment. 
So every fanatic wants to kill the first amendment left and right.
Yeah, oh yeah.  Commies and anti-Commies are not so
different.  All from the looney bin.  They just get different
meal tickets.  Some like meat…and others like….meat.  And
the American Population just sits back and watches the chomping
laughing their heads off. They know, they know, they know that the
left and the right will just eat each other up.  They be cannibals.
hahahahahah like that.

“Liberalism—the principle of equality and liberty -?- is a
centrifugal force, tending to spin separate ?bodies in random,
incoherent directions.” 

An interesting analogy. But it seems like this physics is not quite a
precise simile.  Liberty and equality are disparate forces, and it would
seem irreconcilable.  Sometimes centrifugal force is used to create
gravity, artificial as it would be.  Gravity could be understood with
respect topolitics as referencing something heavy but an attracting
force.  While politics may have some heavy features it would be
helpful if those heavies were made explicit.  For I’m afraid they are as
elusive as the cause of the spinning force itself.

If we are to use it as an isomorphic metaphor, it would not be forcing
separate entities in a random, incoherent direction.  No randomness or
incoherence at all in centrifugal force.  It is forced order, forced
coherence.

The simile for Conservatism does seem applicable where the center is
the dogma, the unbending entrenchment of frozen ideas becomes the
lump of attraction.

It seems to me, though, that the raison d’etre for the existence of
conservatism is to undermine liberalism.  Why be surprised or even
critical of it?  It is the force I am looking at not the way it has become
insanely manifest in the eternal pettiness and boarishness of its actions
and representatives.  They do seem impelled, to borrow from Sir Isaac
Newton.  If conservatism could find a rational ground its counter-
balancing force could be instrumental to political mental health. But we
instinctively know from the current mentality that is an impossibility.

I can only hope theirs is a fictional force that can be newtonalized?

“under a corruption of ?conservatism by an astounding collection of
shallow-?thinking opportunists has become dysfunctional and ?
dangerously immoral.”  So what do we normally do with dysfunctional
and potential danger?  It is difficult first to recognize then treat mental
health problems.  Apparently one cannot put specimens in a petrie dish
and diagnose what exactly is the problem. Apparently those people in
the direst need of help are the least likely to seek it on their own.

There has been lately an awful lot of discussion on a few TD forums
about morality.  Within these electronic halls there is no consensus and
civility has flown away with egotism biting at its heels with fatal
wounds at times.  I have been killed a number of times.  I am a
xombie.  I’m afraid no solutions to any real problems can possibly be
found on this medium.  I suspect it is the same on every single blog
site on the Internet. What hope, or evidence, is there that human
problems can ever be solved.

Well, I am still pissed off that they let women vote, where does it say women should be equal to man in the Constitution, it goes against man principals in general and religious principals everywhere!

As a self proclaimed Constitutional Scholar who really knows my ass from a hole in the ground, my interpretation is the only right interpretation, I declare myself Interpreter supreme without the onions and no secretive sauce. 

Let me tell you, if I was in charge as Interpreter supreme, things would be different, no more of this interpretation to suite interests crap, I feel interpretation should become like region, then everyone can have their own interpretation, instead of this surmising court crap.

Danm: “The ‘sins’ of America are the works of the
Democrat Party.”

According to Thomas Jefferson—who wrote the phrase
‘All men are created equal’ into the Declaration of
Independence—John Marshall was the worst thing to
come along. Marshall was a Federalist, but I guess
the interpretation of your comment depends upon which
sins one looks at.

On a different topic…

Souter: “We want order and security, and we also want
liberty.”

In my view, functioning societies need a balance of
both.

Liberalism—the principle of equality and liberty -
- is a centrifugal force, tending to spin separate
bodies in random, incoherent directions. Conservatism
—the principle of conformity around social
institutions—is a centripetal force, pulling the
independent bodies into orbit around a central,
ordering sun.

Too much of either isn’t good. Fly away, or burn up.
The two work best together and in balance, producing
what heretofore has been the greatest society in
history.

Now, we’ve got a problem.

The modern conservative propaganda movement, cast
under the guise of supporting “rugged individualism”,
is effectively undermining liberalism, although
liberalism is what accounts for the effective
population of the institutions that form society.

In doing so, conservatism is also neglecting its true
role in keeping the institutions in good working
order, allowing them to be corrupted by rogue
individuals (and corporations) who ostensibly promise
to make the insitutions “better” simply by garnering
them more and more authority and power—favorable
laws, more money, etc.

Everything is flip-flopped to the detriment of both.
If successful, conservatism will eventually give rise
to institutions which merely serve as castles for a
few institutionally rich and “powerful”, kings who
forever try to keep control of the huge masses for
whom those institutions are increasingly irrelevant,
meaningless and purposeless at best, adversarial at
worst.

The rich will reign in hell.

In my opinion, right now, the problem isn’t
liberalism. It isn’t about controlling the masses.
The problem is that our institutions—business,
religious, and governmental—under a corruption of
conservatism by an astounding collection of shallow-
thinking opportunists has become dysfunctional and
dangerously immoral.

Good people have fewer opportunities to ally with
moral institutions to effect contributory good on a
large scale. Too many religious, too many business,
too many government bodies are failing their missions
of improving society. They’re populated with
conservative practitioners, who would be
institutional kings instead of societal contributors.

Liberty and equality—liberalism—is a practical
necessity. Those who speak against it, knowingly or
unwittingly, are bringing about the very ruin they
fear.

She:

“And the end of the Pledge of Allegiance is, ‘with liberty and justice for all,’ and every school child K-12 knows that by heart because every single day they have to recite it,  How often do you think they recite the Declaration of Independence?  They might get it in an American History class maybe 12 times in their school life in the 12 years they attend.”

How true!  How sad and true!  Can you imagine how different things might be if they had to recite (or even just read!) the following passage as many times as they recite the POA?:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

As a related aside, the Senate will, sooner than later (particularly in light of the Times Square incident and others), be voting on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act (VRHTA), the single most pernicious and insidious bill since the Patriot Act.  Passed overwhelmingly by the House in 2006, it was put on hold by the Senate due to the economic collapse.  Based on the way the language of the VRHTA is written, it could make a public recitation of the above DOI paragraph a “treasonous” offense!  (I kid you not; the text of the Act is available online.)

Re the POA, don’t forget the inclusion of that pesky “under God” clause.  And no, I am not being facetious.

Peace.

And the end of the Pledge of Allegiance is, “with liberty and justice
for all,” and every school child K-12 knows that by heart because
every single day they have to recite it,  How often do you think they
recite the Declaration of Independence?  They might get it in an
American History class maybe 12 times in their school life in the
12 years they attend (I don’t really count Kindergarten or it would
be 13) So in reality, liberty trumps equality. 

“Definitely not someone you want on the highest bench in the land, at
least not if you believe in justice.”  But, Archie1954, he is on that bench.

What a bunch of crap. The two “decisions” Souter names were total anti constitutional rulings made by racist Democrats that dominated the political machine for the majority of a century and a half. Give me a break. Anyone here ever read the declaration of independence. You know the very first few lines “all men created equal.” The very thing the modern Democrat party was formed to war against from at it’s very inception under Mass murderer Andy Jackson?  The “sins” of America are the works of the Democrat Party. History revisionist progressives trying to hide the past to hide their intent for the future.

The biggest flaw in originalism is the belief by its followers that the founding fathers somehow possessed a superior basis for their thinking.  Face this fact:  the Constitution is NOT holy writ.  Interpreting the Constituion in differing ways or (egad) disagreeing with it has been made the intellectual equivalent of apostacy - domestic heresy.  It’s not the Bible or the Q’ueran or the Midrash Epic or some ancient sanskrit scroll.  Ironic that those who espouse originalism so often also associate themselves with various fundamentalist religious sects and simplistic points of view.

By contrast, the genius of our Constituion was/is in the way its authors understood that no human document or device could long exist if it remained unchanged and, worse yet, unchangeable.

And so our history and future are welded into a continuous thread of pendulum swings from those who treat the document as-is or as-it-might-be.

“Originalism,” is a mask.  The underlying issue is that anti-Constitutional jurists have occupied the Supreme Court since the first Bush Administration.

The legal structures that insure democratic recourse and stability have been under attack since Scalia and Thomas came to the bench.

It is just difficult to stomach that so called “Republicans” since then would become the anti-Constitutional Party.

I am grateful for Justice Souter’s challenge to Scalia and his ilk.  For all the discussion regarding the tension between legal structures that aim to insure “liberty and justice for all” it is nonetheless long overdue to note “self-evident truths” beginning with the fundamental certainty of “inalienable rights”.

The more we discuss democratic rule of law the better.  The more we discuss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the better.  It is the only way we are likely to smoke the scoundrels out and set things right. We can know enemies of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by noting that democratic rights are inclusive and unifying, not exclusive and dividing.  We can remind ourselves that we seek not only liberty for ourselves, but also liberty and justice for all.

OM:

The history of Scalia’s decisions is one of consistently favoring corporations over individuals, and police agencies over established rights.

He’s just led ANOTHER attack with the 5-4 vote that an arrested person’s right to remain silent and be represented by an attorney, must be…REQUESTED by him.  So..if he has to SPEAK to demand the right to remain silent!

Remember: this is the SAME Justice Scalia who stated it’s ok if the police “slap a suspect around”.  How is assaulting a suspect to force and coerce a confession POSSIBLY Constitutional?

Then there’s the case where Scalia went to Cheney’s place to shoot birds just before deciding on whether Cheney was allowed to refuse to give up information to the Justice department—and refused to recuse himself.

I do not agree that Scalia is a bone head. He’s nothing of the sort. He’s far too intelligent—and evil.  I do agree that he’s truly evil and dangerous to America.  Ultimately, he alienated even William Rehnquist, who detested him and broke with Scalia on many issues, particularly the independence of the Federal Courts (which Rehnquist championed).

Originalisnism? “originalism” Originality seems quite a stretch, the ultimate bastardization of language and semantics, another supporting argument enhancing credibility for the existence of the Tower of Babel.  Using the word original with conservative seems the pinnacle of jokes, how can conservative thoughtlessness be considered original? Well, is this not like saying this oxymoron of clarity;  “I never have met an objective conservative, I liked or didn’t like”!

Now I will return to my never ending quest tweaking orginalism from the Bible, maybe Christians could develop their own Surmising Court and make my quest not so grueling?

I am and we the people are so lucky, Obama is a Constitutional Scholar!

Article II of the Constitution states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,
when called into the actual Service of the United States;...”. So who does Justice
Scalia think is the Commander in Chief of the Air Force? If he can find the Air
Force in Article II, why can’t he find the right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...” More
often than not, “originalism” is just another way to say, cherry picker.

This kind of puts to bed any notion that so-called legal scholars are to be believed, in fact even believe themselves.

Legal scholars will argue that the meaning of a provision in the Constitution is indeterminate and then go on to argue what it determines.

Justice Souter’s address is worth your time and attention, here is a link:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/

With lots of wind available to spend, I am absolutely sure I will
learn something about the Constitution as well as the Supreme
Court.  I have some familiarity with the Constitution having at
least read it (more than a few times), and the Supreme Court has
always been somewhat of a cabal of judicial mysticism and without
a doubt there will be a barrel of laughs as I read the article, have
my copy of the Constitution at my right hand, and all the comments
by all the Constitution and SCOTUS experts that visit Truthdig.  I
should say right off, that I too have only a tenuous connection to
reality.  And I would bet the farm so does everyone else.  Well maybe
there are a sprinkling of those who have a decent grasp, and maybe
one or two who have an excellent hold on it, definitely yards better
than mine. I am hoping I will morph in this area from a deep degree of
ignorance to a less degree of ignorance and hope it will make my life
better.

The first “fact” I’ve learned already this morning is that parts of the
Constitution express values that are in conflict with each other.  Who
would have thought?  So we are compelled, ‘we’ meaning the
triumvirate me, myself, and I, to keep an open mind.  And yes, it does
seem that subsequent law attempts to reconcile that dissonance. 

Stated in the article, “The core problem with originalism is that it
overlooks… about the Founders’ work: that it is exceedingly difficult to
discern the “true meaning” of the Constitution since it is the product
“not of closet philosophizing but of contentious political polemics.”

As a result, “many of our most cherished principles of constitutionalism
associated with the Founding were in fact created inadvertently.”

What ought to be discussed here if the article has and traction, is
whether a view of the Constitution by Supreme Court judges ought to
take it as a “Living” instrument, or attempt to use it based on
“Originalism” reference when deciding cases at that level of the
judiciary.  EJ Dionne seems to think Souter is right about the nature of
the Constitution, that it embodies a bifurcating intention, the two
inherently at odds concepts of liberty and equality. How to reconcile the
two is the Occam’s Razor the Supreme Court justices are also
compelled to walk. 

Taking all comments seriously…
From my also ‘unscholarly’ reading, Lance - giving a succinct but
penetrating intelligent history of the Constitution reflects that it was a
time when “reasonable men could agree to disagree.”  Certainly times
have changed!  Implication: Now it is the case that unreasonable men
disagree and disagree and vehemently disagree and those lacking any
substance are reduced to name-calling.  Thank goodness some, if
almost imperceptible, progress has been made!  He asks the seminal
question, Is “original intent” seasonal?  His account is also correct of
Jefferson’s abhorrence at the power of the mob by powers granted to a
central government be codified within The guiding governmental
document.  So it might have been liberty for TJ but it was definitely not
equality.   

What does it really mean that the FFs (Founding Fathers) took
something as GIVEN?  It is hardly silly to have written into a document
what guarantees privacy and it is not equal to the right to breathe.  We
are born with the right to breathe but not with the right to privacy,
especially as we come bare assed into this world to begin with.  The
sum of the parts of the Bill of Rights do not by implication add up to
important provisions left out. rudyspeaks1’s observation has
validity.

The mythical 70% majority populace has no concerns, they are hardly
conscious.  It is specious personal opinioned speculation.

Name calling seems to be the typical fare of the bonehead douche-
bags that keep company with those they call bonehead douche-bags. 
Is it impossible to rise about such immaturity?

Lance, I often avoid reading lengthy comments (though I sometimes make them), but yours was excellent. As was your reply to OzarkMichael. Please post more comments on this site.

I think Scalia and Thomas should really go back to original intent. In 1787 Thomas would have been a slave and Scalia would have been scratching in the soil of what would become Italy to feed himself. Or are they both descended from royalty?

I’m afraid I’m not an attorney, legal expert or “student” of the Constitution so my opinion will lack any “scholarly” depth. But guess what, this is the beauty of the Constitution: it is a roadmap that has helped create an incredibly unique country.

I’m educated enough to understand it’s genesis and have witnessed it “change” since the 1950’s. Which is why, in my “un-scholarly” way, I’d just like to say that Scalia is a bone-headed douche-bag. He’s the kind of guy whose condescending persona probably got him beat up on the playground a lot as a kid. A first class jerk this Scalia!

Inherit - I have read that the right to privacy is not spelled out in the Constitution because at the time of its writing the word ‘privacy’ had to do with toilet functions and apparently the Framers didn’t think we needed spelled out in the Constitution that we had a right to go to the bathroom.  Think privy. 

Other than that, when is Souter going to ‘attack’ the recent Court ruling which gives corporations the right to control the outcomes of our elections.

Ordinarily, I would have a different type comment to add.  But, here, I just want to
express kudos to “Lance” for such a well articulated analysis and comment. 
Excellent.  Thank you.

The original article was interesting. However, each blogger pushes the rhetoric and mutual admiration more and more until we get to Martha/Thomas, who makes the most extravagant but also inevitable criticism: Scalia is a fascist.

Too funny, you guys crack me up.

As far as the 70% majority populace is concerned, I agree with ITW’s statement in reference to Conservative Right-Wing EXTREMIST Judge Scalia, “Scalia is a bad judge. A very, very bad judge.”  Why?  Because he has no justice except for Republican Right-Wing corporate capitalists and he can make corporate Right-Wing and Republican-lite law say whatever he wants it to say to protect the corporate power of fascism.

Actually, Rudyspeak,
The founding fathers didn’t include a right to privacy because it would be a silly as including a right to breathe. They took it as a GIVEN.  AFter all, the right to privacy is really the right to be left alone by the government.

Here’s a favorite thought exercise.  Assume we have no right to privacy, to be left alone.  Now go through the Bill of Right, one by one, and work out the implications of what that means if you do NOT have a right to privacy.  Rights become limited and arbitrary.  But, when privacy is GIVEN, all of the rights enumerated become a logical cohesive whole.

THIS is what Blackmun was talking about in Roe.

And it’s why Scalia is such a shitty justice.

“Originalism” is ahistoric tripe. Alexander Hamilton, arguing against the Bill of
Rights (in the Federalist Papers), worried that a list of rights might convince future
generations that these are the ONLY rights guaranteed, instead of interpreting the
Constitution to mean (as he clearly intended) that the most expansive
interpretation of rights prevail. Hence, Roe v. Wade is decided on the right to
“privacy”, a right that was not recognized in the late 18th century. And the
authoritarian right-wingers scream that it’s not in the Constitution, just as
Hamilton was afraid they would, because they want a static, unchanging society,
which, clearly, the writers of the “original constitution”, the boldest political
innovators on the planet at the time, did NOT want.

Mr. Dooley said:

“th’ supreme coort follows th’ iliction returns.”

There’s more wisdom in this observation by Finley Peter Dunne than we’d like to admit.

I think EJ and Souter miss the point that Plessy was a decision based, not on the law, but on the fact that the public would BARELY accept “separate, but equal” facilities and would have started armed insurrection if the proper ruling had been what Brown did 60 years later.

But what is also missed is the process of amending the Constitution adds to the “penumbra” of the document’s meaning, by enacting in it our CURRENT view of it.  It’s a “morph” as Scalia calls it, but…tough shit! An amendment enacted in the last 50 years is just as valid as the BOR, and, as a part of the Constitution, gives guidance as to its interpretation.

Consider: The amendment giving 18 year olds the vote, or the the one giving DC residents 3 electoral votes.  The Founding Fathers would have considered these absurd.  Yet they change drastically our perception of who SHOULD be allowed to vote for our government.

Or consider the most recent amendment, written by James Madison and lost in the shuffle for 200 years!  It speaks from both his time and ours, looking to allow the voters to judge their leaders’ level of self-aggrandizement.

And EJ makes the point (badly) that the Constitution lays out principles, but does not get down to the granular level of individual cases:  That is what Law and judicial precedent fill out.

Scalia is a bad judge. A very, very bad judge.