Rosa Parks dead at 92

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by alphamale

More baloney. The 14th amendment was enacted precisely to protect blacks from such acts by government.

Then along came the Hayes-Tildon presidential election of 1876. To appease Southern Democrats for the abominable shenanigans that went on there, the federal government ended Reconstruction, looked the other way and thereby set the stage for a hundred years of Jim Crow legislation within the boundaries of the former CSA.

Keep in mind that segregating blacks from whites wasn't ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause until 1954. Before that, the Supreme Court formally sanctioned segregation. Even after 1954, it took decades of formal compulsion -- up to and including military intervention -- to force places like Montgomery, Alabama to comply with the "black and white clear text" of the Fourteenth Amendment.

And now, on to the "late 20th century USSC amazing carnival stunts."

Originally Posted by alphamale

(1) Deleting the second amendment

Still there, as far as I know. The Supreme Court has pretty much ignored the Second Amendment, and what little they've said is open to varying interpretations. For example, there's a difference of opinion among federal appellate courts about whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms or whether, as the text itself suggests, the right is limited to the context of service within a "well-regulated militia." Both sides of the issue cite the same Supreme Court case as support for their positions.

Originally Posted by alphamale

(2) Deleting the free expression of religion clause of the first amendment

If you're talking about the Free Exercise Clause, it's still there as well. The protections aren't as expansive as they once were, but we have Antonin Scalia to thank for the "neutral laws of general applicability" test.

Originally Posted by alphamale

(3) using the interstate commerce clause to extend federal control over anything that strikes the imagination of an 80 year old drooling lib

I'm down with you on this one, except that nowadays it's also drooling faux conservatives trying to take advantage of the Court's expansive readings of the Commerce Clause. Some Republicans actually believe that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to enact national tort reform legislation! Utterly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by alphamale

(4) mirabile dictu, a right to privacy, and (gasp!) watch their hands! - a right to abortion!!!

As a general matter, the Court's right-to-privacy cases operate primarily as a limit on government's power to legislate the details of one's personal life. Isn't that a good thing? As for the so-called "right to abortion!!!", I join in Scarlatti's implicit invitation to read Roe and its progeny for yourself.

Just out of curiosity, do you also oppose the Supreme Court decisions holding that the Due Process Clause imposes substantive limits on the amount of punitive damages awards in civil cases? After all, those cases are based on essentially the same theory as Roe et al.

[alphamale]

As a general matter, the Court's right-to-privacy cases operate primarily as a limit on government's power to legislate the details of one's personal life. Isn't that a good thing? As for the so-called "right to abortion!!!", I join in Scarlatti's implicit invitation to read Roe and its progeny for yourself.

Of course I've read it. I'm not a lawyer, but to me as well as people far more learned on the subject, it appears to be far-fetched over-reaching and has created never-imagined rights out of whole cloth. Yes, I DO think a properly-construed right to privacy would be a good thing - it's just not in the constitution, and in any case could never be the basis for killing what may be a human being. How do you go from "privacy" to "killing"? Obviously, in abortion, a lot more may be involved than just privacy.

Just out of curiosity, do you also oppose the Supreme Court decisions holding that the Due Process Clause imposes substantive limits on the amount of punitive damages awards in civil cases? After all, those cases are based on essentially the same theory as Roe et al.

No, and now you're going to tell me the conservatives voted for that, eh?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

[Roe v. Wade] created never-imagined rights out of whole cloth.

Now it's no longer apparent you've never read it. It's obvious.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Now it's no longer apparent you've never read it. It's obvious.

Yaaaaa surrrre ...

[livius drusus]

Okay then. I'm sure you'll have no difficulty citing the never-imagined rights created by the decision. Here's a link to it. Please quote the passages you're referring to.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Of course I've read [Roe]. I'm not a lawyer, but to me as well as people far more learned on the subject, it appears to be far-fetched over-reaching and has created never-imagined rights out of whole cloth.

That's incorrect as a simple matter of fact. Roe's jurisprudential pedigree dates back to the late Nineteenth Century. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether the case was correctly decided, but there's no basis at all for contending that the Roe court "created never-imagined rights out of whole cloth."

Originally Posted by alphamale

Yes, I DO think a properly-construed right to privacy would be a good thing - it's just not in the constitution, . . .

The Fourth Amendment assures freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. As a practical matter, isn't that a protection of privacy, even though the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the text?

On a related note, what would a properly construed right to privacy look like?

Originally Posted by alphamale

No, and now you're going to tell me the conservatives voted for that, eh?

Well, yeah, a number of them have. Justices endorsing the notion that a punitive damages award can be unconstitutionally excessive include conservatives William Rehnquist and Byron White, the often-conservative Sandra Day O'Connor and the sometimes-conservative Anthony Kennedy.

As Scalia points out in his opinions and public speeches, there's no Excessive Punitive Damages Clause in the Constitution. Opposing Roe et al. on the ground that there's no express privacy right in the Constitution while at the same time supporting the Court's punitive damages jurisprudence can most charitably be described as wholly inconsistent.

[D. Scarlatti]

That's probably a bit too subtle for alphamale, who likely gave up defending his "never-imagined" claim at the mention of the Persian Empire in Roe v. Wade (if he got that far).

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

That's probably a bit too subtle for alphamale, who likely gave up defending his "never-imagined" claim at the mention of the Persian Empire in Roe v. Wade (if he got that far).

What pseudo-intellectual bullshit! ..... whether the annual dispatch of millions of fetuses in america should depend on anything about the persian empire! Hey, did you take into account the HITTITE empire? How about the Sumerians?

[D. Scarlatti]

You said it was a "never-imagined right." Why is tracing the legal history of the practice pseudo-intellectual bullshit? The courts do it all the time. It's called context. The U.S. itself received much of its law from ancient sources. Even the Constitution wasn't invented out of "whole cloth."

Anyway, are you going to argue your claims or not?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by alphamale

More baloney. The 14th amendment was enacted precisely to protect blacks from such acts by government. This is black and white clear text and is completely distinguishable from such late 20th century USSC amazing carnival stunts as (1) Deleting the second amendment (2) Deleting the free expression of religion clause of the first amendment (3) using the interstate commerce clause to extend federal control over anything that strikes the imagination of an 80 year old drooling lib and (4) mirabile dictu, a right to privacy, and (gasp!) watch their hands! - a right to abortion!!!

Y'know, when you first posted this I actually thought you knew what you were talking about. I started to have my doubts after you muttered something about not being a lawyer but having educated friends just before you fumbled through that non-answer to Stephen Maturin's first response, but your completely ignoring his last post in favor of trying to ridicule Scarlatti makes it crystal clear that you don't even understand the claims you've made much less the foundation for them. I really hope you're covertly trying to make knee-jerk, right-wing conservativism look mindless and silly.

[D. Scarlatti]

Besides, amendments to the Constitution aren't "enacted." They are "proposed" and (potentially) "ratified" or, prior to 1808, "made." They have also been "repealed." But never enacted.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

You said it was a "never-imagined right." Why is tracing the legal history of the practice pseudo-intellectual bullshit? The courts do it all the time. It's called context. The U.S. itself received much of its law from ancient sources. Even the Constitution wasn't invented out of "whole cloth."

Anyway, are you going to argue your claims or not?

Yeah yeah .... but what about the Cro-Magnons? Stop! Yer killin me!!!

[D. Scarlatti]

Apparently not.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Apparently not.

[livius drusus]

Okay then. I'm sure you'll have no difficulty citing the never-imagined rights created by the decision. Here's a link to it. Please quote the passages you're referring to.

[D. Scarlatti]

One might derive more edification discussing constitutional law with a second trimester fetus.

[viscousmemories]

Saying 'might' is an insult to second trimester fetuses.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

William Rehnquist

Speaking of whom, given his opinion* in Washington v. Glucksberg, which refers to both ancient and - gasp - foreign law, alphamale's ridicule of the practice seems slightly misplaced.

* Joined by Scalia and Thomas.

[alphamale]

Look back at the thread - it's a pissing contest. I only partake in those while it's amusing - this has gotten boring. Also there's near 100% thread entropy - remember how it started with St. Parks? Speaking of which - there's another outrage - we now have politically correct lyings-in-state in the capitol rotunda. There's hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers who died in combat who deserve that honor before St. Parks.

[D. Scarlatti]

You brought up the question of rights, and now you've scurried away from it.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

You brought up the question of rights, and now you've scurried away from it.

I've actually slumped into a bored stupor from a non-entertaining pissing contest.

[D. Scarlatti]

Apprising me of your stupor at this point is redundant.