Bush set to mollify religious conservatives today

[D. Scarlatti]

In the main case upon which Doe v. Groody rests, Groh v. Ramirez, while Justices Rehnquist and Kennedy dissent on the issue of qualified immunity for the police officers, only Scalia and Thomas believe the defective warrant passed constitutional muster. Both Rehnquist and Kennedy believe the police actions taken pursuant to the insufficiency of the warrant were in violation of the 4th Amendment.

So, on this particular issue at least, Judge Alito is as anti-Bill of Rights as Thomas and Scalia.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

You mean like strip searching a woman and a 10-year-old child that aren't "particularly described" on a warrant?

Under what circumstances did that happen?

[D. Scarlatti]

Under the circumstances that a woman and a 10-year-old child were strip searched despite not being "particularly described" on the warrant. What other circumstances would a strict constructionist require?

I guess my questions would be 1) Why should sloppy police work be granted a constitutional pass and 2) If the intent of the framers was to grant sloppy police work a constitutional pass, why did they devote the majority of the Bill of Rights to the rights of defendants.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Under the circumstances that a woman and a 10-year-old child were strip searched despite not being "particularly described" on the warrant. What other circumstances would a strict constructionist require?

Did it happen or not?

[D. Scarlatti]

Maybe the 3rd Circuit made it all up? Of course it happened. What kind of a question is that?

[alphamale]

I can't get you to engage in a coherent discussion - I give up.

[D. Scarlatti]

That's unfortunate. You giving up means at least 50% less comedy.

[livius drusus]

alphamale, Scarlatti is talking about the case Doe v. Groody, which came up before the 3rd Circuit when Alito was on the court. I asked him about it in this thread yesterday (here) and he responded with an analysis of the case a few hours later (here).

You were posting on this thread all that time, so it's perplexing why you suddenly have no idea that we're discussing an actual case involving real people and a real decision.

[D. Scarlatti]

I'm personally hurt that the "chicken chesting" opportunities were more compelling for alphamale rather than the actual substance of the thread. Perhaps I should have attached a sexy photo of me bench pressing 80 pounds to the post.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

alphamale, Scarlatti is talking about the case Doe v. Groody, which came up before the 3rd Circuit when Alito was on the court. I asked him about it in this thread yesterday (here) and he responded with an analysis of the case a few hours later (here).

You were posting on this thread all that time, so it's perplexing why you suddenly have no idea that we're discussing an actual case involving real people and a real decision.

Sorry, I stopped looking at this thread for awhile - I hadn't read that. It sounded like he was talking about something with 4 out of every 5 words removed.

Here's another question about Roe: surely people can't be killed by the state without due process, right? In ruling on Roe, the USSC was implicitly saying that fetuses less than 3 months weren't "persons", ie. live human beings. Did Blackmun have a PhD in philosophy? A medical degree? On what basis could Blackmun have decided that a fetus isn't a human being? Maybe if you twist and squeeze and stare real hard at the constitution and carefully consider it's context in the history of the Persian Empire, somehow you can "discover" that fetuses aren't human beings, and don't deserve due process?

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Sorry, I stopped looking at this thread for awhile - I hadn't read that. It sounded like he was talking about something with 4 out of every 5 words removed.

As I said, you were posting in the thread at the time. In fact, you posted 4 times between my question and Scarlatti's reply, once to Scarlatti himself on the matter of so-called strict constructionism.

So, then, please answer the question. Does the 4th Amendment allow police to search people who are not included on the warrant, in this case strip-search 2 others, including a 10 year old girl?

[alphamale]

As I said, you were posting in the thread at the time. In fact, you posted 4 times between my question and Scarlatti's reply, once to Scarlatti himself on the matter of so-called strict constructionism.

So, then, please answer the question. Does the 4th Amendment allow police to search people who are not included on the warrant, in this case strip-search 2 others, including a 10 year old girl?

Really, ya gotta believe me, I didn't read that post! The answer to your question is no. Phew! Happy now? Now answer mine.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Really, ya gotta believe me, I didn't read that post!

I believe you, although I would add that's it's a bit of a cautionary tale, isn't it? It's easy to get caught up in sniping and ignore substance.

Originally Posted by alphamale

The answer to your question is no.

Thank you. I agree with you: Alito, Scalia and Thomas interpolated a non-existent right into the 4th Amendment.

Originally Posted by alphamale

Now answer mine.

You never answered my question on Roe in the thread where people were actually talking about it, so I see no reason to answer your barrage here. Perhaps you could start a new thread on Roe with your answer to my question as the OP.

[alphamale]

No, I don't want to get into the usual 200-post roe v. wade thread.

[livius drusus]

Then why ask about it?

[Clutch Munny]

So, then:

So-called conservative judges project new rights into the Constitution.

So-called judicial activism is not implicated in America's tendencies to wage war without declaring it.

Invalidating legislation is not a major issue here.

...was there anything left?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

So, then:

So-called conservative judges project new rights into the Constitution.

So-called judicial activism is not implicated in America's tendencies to wage war without declaring it.

Invalidating legislation is not a major issue here.

...was there anything left?

Yeah -

- Liberals won't answer questions about Roe

- The war issue was based on one idiot's misunderstanding of a post

- And the conservative judges issue was about subtracting, not adding rights

- You have a reading comprehension problem

- This thread has become way boring

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Don't tell me there is imprecise language in the Constitution. Whatever shall we do about that?

Say it ain't so, you Popeye's chicken-eating, forty-drinking liberal freak! If there's ambiguity in the Constitution, then textualism is a big, honking snow job! That means judges would have to INTERPRET the Constitution instead of just reading and applying it! Oh! Oh, my! I do believe I'm developing a severe case of the vapors!

Originally Posted by alphamale

Here's another question about Roe: surely people can't be killed by the state without due process, right?

You betcha. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly provides that states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ."

Originally Posted by alphamale

In ruling on Roe, the USSC was implicitly saying that fetuses less than 3 months weren't "persons", ie. live human beings. Did Blackmun have a PhD in philosophy? A medical degree? On what basis could Blackmun have decided that a fetus isn't a human being?

Two serious problems are evident right off the bat. First, there's nothing "implicit" in the Roe's Court's discussion of the fetus's status as a person. It's out there for all the world to see. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156-58 (1973).

Second, the Court never decided that a fetus isn't a "human being." Indeed, the Court explicitly declined to take sides on the question of when life begins. That wasn't the issue at all. The narrow issue was whether the word "person", as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, includes the unborn. Even if a fetus is a full-fledged human being, it has no constitutional rights unless that question can be answered in the affirmative. Blackmun did a fine job describing why the question had to be answered in the negative. His lack of formal training in medicine and/or philosophy is irrelevant.

[alphamale]

Even if a fetus is a full-fledged human being, it has no constitutional rights unless that question can be answered in the affirmative. Blackmun did a fine job describing why the question had to be answered in the negative. His lack of formal training in medicine and/or philosophy is irrelevant.

Yeah and I calculate rocket trajectories but it has no connection with my training! The idea that judges can seperate what admittedly may be human beings from legal "persons", with the consequence that a whole class of what may be human beings can be killed on a massive scale, shows without a doubt how vile an "activist judge" can be. I don't know what is worse, that or that probably liberal law school profs brainwash their students that cutting millions of human beings free from due process is a wonderful legal decision.

[Trojan]

You don't have rights until you're born. Logic. If you don't like abortion, don't have one! Keep your government out of citizen's personal lives!

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That wasn't the issue at all. The narrow issue was whether the word "person", as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, includes the unborn.

Ah, good point Stephen.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by alphamale

The idea that judges can seperate what admittedly may be human beings from legal "persons", with the consequence that a whole class of what may be human beings can be killed on a massive scale, shows without a doubt how vile an "activist judge" can be.

"Activist judges" didn't do it, man. The Framers did. Words in the Constitution mean today what they meant when the constitutional provision under discussion took effect, right? I mean, that's the basic so-called "strict constructionist" position. As detailed in Roe (again, I invite you to read the opinion rather than just saying you read it ), "person" meant born human being at the times in question. Hell, even the dissenters in Roe didn't argue otherwise, IIRC.

Originally Posted by alphamale

I don't know what is worse, that or that probably liberal law school profs brainwash their students that cutting millions of human beings free from due process is a wonderful legal decision.

Actually, my constitutional law professor loathed substantive due process in general and Roe in particular. However, intellectual honesty coupled with knowledge of the subject matter compelled him to recognize that that fetuses are not "persons" as the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment understood that word.

There are plenty of other bases for opposing Roe, dude. This one's a non-starter.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by alphamale

I don't know what is worse, that or that probably liberal law school profs brainwash their students that cutting millions of human beings free from due process is a wonderful legal decision.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't recall ever having heard a law professor declare that any decision whatsoever was rightly or wrongly decided, let alone that one was "wonderful," especially among the abortion cases. That ain't how law school works. And I have had some very liberal law professors, as well as some very conservative and deeply religious ones (not to mention the deeply religious liberals).

[TomJoe]

I'm assuming I'm missing something here, and if I am, please excuse my ignorance.

So a woman does not need to notify the father of the child, prior to an abortion. Even though he has donated half of the reproductive material for the creation of that child.

However, once that child is born, the father of the child can be held responsible by the courts to pay for child support, since he donated half of the reproductive material for the creation of that child.

So why is he excluded in the first instance, and held responsible in the other? Other than the birth of the child, has anything changed in those ~9 months?

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I'm assuming I'm missing something here, and if I am, please excuse my ignorance.

So a woman does not need to notify the father of the child, prior to an abortion. Even though he has donated half of the reproductive material for the creation of that child.

However, once that child is born, the father of the child can be held responsible by the courts to pay for child support, since he donated half of the reproductive material for the creation of that child.

So why is he excluded in the first instance, and held responsible in the other? Other than the birth of the child, has anything changed in those ~9 months?

I'm certain you'll get far more substantive replies to your post but to me the answer is that while the fetus remains a part of the woman's body, it is her issue and hers alone. A man that forces pregnancy on a woman after sex, denying her a say in the matter is wrong. A man could decide he wants 15 kids, woman says no, man gets his sex from her by any means necessary, she gets pregnant, woman becomes baby machine. After the fetus joins our world the man has responsibility.