Ordinarily, U.S. Supreme Court justices avoid television interviews, leaving the cameras for politicians. Justice Antonin Scalia apparently prefers a higher-profile approach.
Fresh off his widely-derided political antics towards the end of the court's last session, Scalia recently appeared on CNN, and just 10 days later, sat down with Chris Wallace on yesterday's edition of "Fox News Sunday."
The two covered a fair amount of ground, including Scalia's argument that there's "no way" the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate should be regarded "as a tax." (Those who can afford coverage but refuse to buy it pay a tax penalty on their tax returns.) They also touched on gun control, and Scalia's belief that firearms protected under the Second Amendment must be "hand-carried." He added, in reference to the law, "It's to keep and bear, so it doesn't apply to cannons."
What about "handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes"? Scalia said it's unclear whether that's protected, and "it will have to be decided." I'll look forward to it.
But of particular interest to me was Scalia's opposition to privacy rights. Unprompted, the justice noted his opposition to reproductive rights, and it led to this exchange:
WALLACE: What about the right to privacy that the court found in known 1965?
SCALIA: There is no right to privacy. No generalized right to privacy.
WALLACE: Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was.
SCALIA: Indeed it did, and that was -- that was wrong.
In case anyone needs a refresher on Griswold, the Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling in 1965, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples' access to birth control. The court majority, in a landmark ruling, said such statutes are impermissible -- they violate Americans' right to privacy.
Yesterday's exchange didn't break new ground, but it was a noteworthy reminder that far-right jurists on the high court still have a problem with Griswold, even a half-century later.
For Scalia, if a state wants to restrict married couples' access to contraception, there are no rights afforded by the Constitution that say otherwise. "There is," he said, "no right to privacy."
It's a fanciful dream, but I'd love for this to be an issue in the 2012 presidential race.
Leave a Comment:
The problem with the literalists like Scalia is that such a position favors big government control of people's lives. It is not at all unusual for many conservatives to say that they are against big government, then to turn around and make statements that ultimately lead to that exact position. Such is usually the case with 'morality' laws that depart from the principles of the freedom of man and equal justice before the law.
On a related note, the Catholic Church finally did away with the Inquisition as a method of testing one's faith... in 1908.
But, what is to stop them from bringing it back?
Conservatives are against Big Government when it stops them from doing what THEY want, but for it when it prevents YOU from the same freedom.
"Conservatives are against Big Government when it stops them from doing what THEY want, but for it when it prevents YOU from the same freedom."
Great point expressed in simple terms!!
Republicans: We're against big government, until we decide we want to shove an ultrasound inside you for no good reason.
In some ways this country got off to a bad start in the 1790s.
Pres. John Adams (the 2nd Pres.) helped write the Constitution, but when he was criticized got Congress to enact and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. They outlawed speech and articules in the press that criticized the Pres. and Gov. A newspaper editor was convicted and sent to a prison in Maine under these laws. The lack of heat in the winter broke his health. He was not the only one.
The founders broke their own 1st Amendment the 1st chance they got.
Further, were the laws against contraception. In place from the start.
The 9th Amendment implies that a right to privacy could be in there and the 4th and 5th Amendments point to the fact that it (privacy) is in there. Anyone can see that it should be in there, so it is in there.
Hypocrites have always been with us, it seems.
This is a man who throws hissy fits when he doesn't get his way. He's a big baby.
Domingo's right: Day said it all in a few words. They want feudalism, but don't want anyone to call it that. When you point out what they're doing, they accuse you of class warfare.
Scalia is a reason to enact a Constitutional Amendment that allows the President to fire 1 SC justice in each Presidential 4 year term.
People, including SC justices, live longer than they did in the 1790s.
It would be a way to get rid of the "worst" SC justices in the eyes of the then President.
A wish to avoid being the "worst" on their end of the left/right spectrum, might tend to move them toward the center some.
I couldn't go for that, we already have a method for removing a sitting Justice, impeachment. The fact that it has been rarely tried and never successfully accomplished is a testament to its power, one that should be used sparingly if at all. Your amendment would lead to an even greater stacking capability for a president to effect ideological imbalance on the court, something I would not want even the most moderate president to have, let alone ideologues.
Personally I think that this Supreme Court is so political that the justices should have to run for office and give us all a chance to vote them in or out. The justice for life idea was to eliminate the politicization of the court and that has failed.
Paul...,
It has failed disastrously.
Paul, Supreme court justices are elected in the state of Wisconsin. Electing them just makes things even more political. Special interest groups and SuperPACS will be able to buy the justices they want to rule in their favor. So, no, electing the Supreme Court won't change anything. In fact, it will make things worse.
Read THE APPEALby John Grisham for a really scary read about electing state supreme court justices..let alone federal. Very bad idea.
<<Constitutional Amendment that allows the President to fire 1 SC justice >> Sorry...separation of powers is more important.
Well now we will not rid ourselves of the buying of the court as long as the justices that said corporations are people are on the bench.
Just as the 16th was needed to clarify the taxing powers of Congress, maybe now is the time to enshrine the right to privacy in the Constitution. While we're at it, since the polls seem to indicate the vast majority of Americans favor abortion rights, Roe v. Wade should also be so enshrined. Once these amendments pass and are ratified then there would be no such arguments from conservatives.
Never say "never". Amendments to the Constitution can be repealed just as they can be enacted. Remember Prohibition?
That's the goal with the 2nd as well isn't it?
A constitution is only as good as the people who enforce and/or interpret it.
That Scalia doesn't believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution has been known for decades. That is old news.
What I find offensive is Scalia felt he could set down with Chris Wallace and talk about matters that might come before the Court. In the old days that would never have happened. These days the Court is just another overtly political body where everyone feels free to run off at the mouth.
I agree. Wallace tried to incorporate modernization into the discussion and Scalia was adamant on his point of view that you MUST interpret the "law" as it was written in the time.
My question to that is, what if modern arms manufactures did not make any firearms that were NOT semi/fully automatic? The firearms of the day when it was our right to "bear arms" were single shot, muzzle loaded black powder mechanisms. Today you can fire more than a hundred of rounds in a minute with a revolver if you are skilled. That's not even considering the semi-auto handguns. How could you possibly interpret the law as it was meant to be when it was written IF there are not commonalities? It is our right to keep and bear arms, even if those arms available are only 'hand held rocket launchers'?? I know that example is crazy talk, but that IS the argument against originalism. Times have changed SO much in 200+ years that you cannot feasibly compare or arguable comprehend how they were meant to be interpreted in today's society.
Justice Scalia also met with Piers Morgan. He has a book to sell.
Please stick to facts; not everyone on the SCt "feels free to run off at the mouth." Only Justice Scalia.
I have argued for decades that the Gov. must limit some arms and this means that the absolute interpretation must be abandoned. Examples (as stated by others here and in article and mine) are-- backpack atomic bombs, shoulder fired heat seeking anti-aircraft rockets, and poison gas cylinders.
All of these can be hand carried. [I suppose he gets the 'hand carried' from the same place I do-- it says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall...."]
But, the Gov. allowed the people to own cannons in the 1800s. Mr. Bent had 3 cannons at his Bent's Fort in Colo in the 1840s and a howitzer was used to murder a group of Apache Indians at a feast to collect their hair to collect the bounty on dead Apaches that (old) Mexico was paying.
Another example of a "living" Constitution is the Air Force. It says only that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. The Air Force is not mentioned. But, the President is also the CinC of the Air Force, right?
I'm going out on a limb here to say, the founders did not expect that airplanes would be invented and had to be taken into account. [snark]
The government does regulate and controls arms. There are laws and restrictions in place. For example you can actually own an automatic weapon, 1- if you can afford it. 2- if you have it registered and pay the proper "tax" to the BATF. Other things like heavy weapons, chemical and biological munitions are classified as military use only. So there are already restrictions in place. What we're talking about in the case of Gun Control is small arms. But it's easier to use hyperbole and fear mongering to make the problem seem bigger.
The argument never actually addresses criminals and guns though. The fact is unless you get rid of all guns (good luck with that) you won't keep them out of the hands of criminals. So all the good intentions of gun control does is to hurt the law abiding citizen.
I own and carry a handgun concealed. That's my right and I refuse to give it up for the unfounded fears of an uneducated liberal agenda.
David -
No one here, or anywhere for that matter is asking you to give up your handgun. What is being discussed are assault weapons and ammo clips allowing the firing of 60 + rounds a minute. There is a big step from that to you thinking that the uneducated liberal agenda is to take your handgun. Please pay attention.
Gun carrying advocates, including you, David, continually lump any gun control into all gun control. I'm for gun control. I don't want to take all guns away, but I do want to make all semi-automatic guns and extended clips illegal. I also want to do away with concealed weapons. If you want to carry a gun, you should have to carry it out in the open so that I have the freedom to decide if I want to be in the same store with you, the same bus with you, etc. I also think anyone who wants to own and carry a gun should have to undergo mandatory safety training and not be allowed to have a license until they do (just like driving) and have to have it renewed periodically.
Guns are dangerous weapons and if you want to argue that you have a right to carry a gun, then my argument is that I have a right to know that you're carrying it and that you've been trained properly. Private businesses should also have the right to prevent you from having a gun in their business. If I owned a coffee shop, how do I know that you're carrying your gun legally and not there to rob me?
Racquel Hagen- Semi automatics covers a lot of ground. Including my gun as well. I can understand regulations on automatic weapons but I don't see control and or a ban of semi auto weapons making the kind of change you want to affect possible.
Just so you know as well I'm legally licensed by my state to carry concealed which means I had to attend an 8 hour course and qualify on a range first. I went above and beyond that personally by also taking level 2,3, and 3.1 defensive shooting courses because it has been almost 15 years since I last carried on a regular basis and I felt I needed to blow the cobwebs off. My permit is good for 4 years and must be renewed by me each time.
I also am in favor of an open carry policy though for different reasons. Though there are times when concealed carry is more advantageous. Private businesses do have the right to decide if I can carry in there business, though I must say most of the ones down here are friendly for the most part to law abiding citizens with cwp.
One point I would like to make about guns in general is that there needs to be more and better information about them and more gun education overall.
Why do you need to carry a semi-automatic gun? How does being able to fire multiple rounds or being able to fire 30 rounds in less then a minute protect you any better then a non semi-automatic handgun. And since you carry a concealed weapon, have you ever had to use it to protect yourself? I mention concealed because perhaps openly carrying would deter a criminal whereas concealed would not.
I'm very happy that you have taken all those classes. Unfortunately, I doubt you're in the majority. The Aurora shooter, for instance, didn't need to take any classes and he purchased his weapons legally. The idiot that shot himself in Walmart recently probably didn't take any safety classes either. And a friend of mine who is a normally very reasonable person, accidentally took his gun with him to Mexico because he'd forgotten it was in his backpack. For every responsible gun owner (which I will assume you are) there are a dozen irresponsible gun owners.
You complain about an "uneducated liberal agenda" yet you don't bother to actually learn what our agenda is and automatically assume that our goal is to ban all guns. So who is being uneducated? You may have a "right to bear arms" (as part of a well-regulated militia, by the way, which I'll assume you're not part of). But I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which to me does not include having to be near someone carrying a gun.
The text of the Second Amendment (as passed by Congress 1791) states:
The purpose was to ensure "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," NOT a free-for-all for individual fun and games. Why is this half of the amendment always ignored?
[Probably, at the time of passage, the states had not yet organized and funded a fully equipped standing army, and so relied on individuals called upon to serve to come supplied with their own weapons. I'm not an historian so that is merely my assumption.]
I found his logic strangely ironic in that it parallels fundamentalist and literalist interpreting of the Bible. With his method the Constitution would have to be amended constantly to account for minute changes in science and the culture. It would no longer be the wonderful document we admire. It would be a multi-volume tome reminiscent of religious manuscripts.
I wish anonymous would hack his private email files . Expose once and for all his ties to the Republican Big money machine. I bet his views would change rapidly.
Fox and CNN interviews?
How disrespectful of the office
Do you think Scalia uses email? Men of his generation never learned to touch type.
They must use it. All these damn crazy emails I keep getting aren't forwarding themselves.
He's a strict Constitutionalist! He uses a quill and a bottle of ink on parchment. :-P
In the strictest sense, Scalia is correct, as there is no "right to privacy" enshrined in the Constitution. The problem is two-fold though. First of all, the 4th amendment clearly implies some sort of privacy right, although a strict reading of it is only against "unreasonable search and seizure". Of course what constitutes "unreasonable" is up for interpretation, but in the strictest sense, prohibiting the purchase of birth control might not be seen as search or seizure. The other flaw is that I don't see how you can claim to view the Constitution as a document intended to limit government and then claim that in fact, the Constitution doesn't REALLY limit government.
Your latter point should be in bold. That was perfectly stated and it shows how political Scalia is on the bench.
Why are conservatives and religious fanatics so frightened of sex?
Maybe because they are lousy at it?
Didn't Sister Mary Theresa Agatha of the Little Sisters of the Poor teach you anything? Sex is nasty! Obviously, Justice Scalia learned that lesson well.
Privacy is a privilege awarded to the weak at heart. If we are to monitor our behavior, who best to do it than a person with knowledge. Love yourself.
Possession of knowledge does not automatically confer wisdom and/or decency. Hope this helps.
Come back and say that when the government is trying to control how you use your reproductive organs.
not a shock, but still good to hear it plain and simple.
How ironic is it that Scalia is all against privacy rights, but never talks about internal Supreme Court dealings, as he stated in this very same interview?
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Scalia is a clown. What the hell is this joker smoking? Weapons must be "hand carried"? Where does he pull that from? If there is "no right to privacy," then there certainly is even less of an argument for corporate personhood. This assclown wants to have it both ways because it has nothing to to with judicial prudence; it is all about personal agenda for clowns like this. I don't agree with the second amendment, but it is what it is, so I deal with it.
Scalia is perhaps, the most dangerous human in government. He is an unabashed restricter of rights, and seems pleased with himself. Arrogant and theocratic would describe him ...he is a joke and no one is laughing!!! The single most important reason to vote for Dems is the supreme Court. They will harm people not yet born, and they are sooooooo worried about the unborn. What an irony
Excellent. Just a couple more Republican-appointed Scalia types, and I'll be able to get the bazooka I've always cherished and deemed necessary for joining a weekend militia of Walter Mitty's.
Seriously, how does anyone believe this is an intelligent, wise man. What about suitcase nukes? Scalia needs to be gone. No man who thinks like he does should have any say whatsoever.
Yeah that's right get rid of freedom of speech too while you're at it.
Exactly. Because being able to carry around a suitcase nuke, a bazooka, or a flame thrower is equivalent to the right to write a letter to the editor, post on a blog, or petition the government.
This is why people think you Tea-diots Freedom Lovers are ridiculous. Your measures are ludicrous absolutist, whether it's unfettered markets or the favored individual liberties of the right where the concerns and freedoms of others are cast aside.
Grow up you old wack job. It's 2012, not 1789.
It simply bothers me you're so willing to give my right to bear arms away so quickly. And no I'm not talking about the "suit case nuke" you're so fond of. I mean just my 45 compact. Whether you like it or not I have a right to defend myself and my family no matter what, whether we're at home or a theater or down at the Waffle House for some grub. That hasn't changed since 1789. You're really rather loose with the facts since you have no idea how I stand on the "freedoms" of others but that isnt' the point is it. It's all to easy to throw out accusations and make someone have to defend themselves rather than discussing a topic.
And it simply amazes me that you can construct out my first post that I'm "so willing to give your right to bear arms away so quickly." There was no mention of handguns. You see, you simply provided evidence for my second post, rising up and soiling yourself when any mention of any proscriptions of any kind against weaponry is made.
You're an old paranoid whack job like the rest of the Tea-diots, and damn near everybody considers your type ridiculous.
Grow up. It's 2012, not 1789.
No you didn't mention hand guns. You tried the BS what if argument. But it's a non issue. The goverment already has regulations in place governing the use and possesion of heavy weapons and certainly of chemical/biological and nuclear weapons which are considered Military only ordinance. But you know that already. It's the fact you believe the second amendment is outdated when you don't even know why it was included.
Listen dumba$$. Scalia said "hand-held." OK? OK?!!!!!!!!! More idiots like him (and you) on the Supreme Court using the Scalia "hand-held" principle could deem any current laws unconstitutional. He makes no bones about saying established precedent is wrong. He clearly will decide and rule against precedent because he has done so recently. So you don't decide what is BS and you don't decide the non-issues. And your paranoia and ridiculous logical inductions don't decide what I think about the 2nd Amendment. Got it? Good.
And again, you've shown yourself to be EXACTLY what I said you were: an absolutist idiot.
Grow up old man. It's 2012. Not 1789.
My paranoia? Sorry I'm not paranoid. I'm protected.... I'll keep my guns you keep your opinions, turn em sideways, shine em up, and well.... you'll figure it out I'm sure.
Well, at least you understand you just lost. And yes, you're paranoid. Paranoid and protected are not mutually exclusive. Nobody could take my first post and construct it as an attack on the 2nd Amendment, no matter how the Amendment is interpreted, and no matter how bad your English and reading comprehension skills are, without being a paranoid whack job.
Grow up old man. It's 2012. Not 1789.
First and Second Amendment absolutists refuse to acknowledge the reality that as a practical matter, no right of action based on belief can be absolute.
Oh no disgusted you're not attacking the 2nd Amend. You just think it's out dated. After all who needs to be armed. Who needs a gun? Ask that if you're ever unlucky enough to be the victim and the cop isn't there to bail you out.
Sorry, whack job. You Tea-diots don't decide what other people think. Doing so is what leads you off into the soaring displays of clueless induction and non sequitur. You do it because you're paranoid.
Grow up wacky old man. It's 2012. Not 1789.
I never claimed that I want to even try and decide what others think. But you seem to think that you know better than everyone else. Why am I paranoid? Cause every opportunity they get the left screams for a gun ban?? Nah that can't possibly have anything to do with it.
You might not have claimed to want to try and decide what others think; you did it. All it takes is a rudimentary ability to read and a cursory look at the above posts, and you'll see it.
You did get one thing right: I do think I know better than the entire Republican party and the satellites that surround it. Yep, sure do. Because what they think is flat-out stupid.
Why are you paranoid? I don't know.
"every opportunity they get the left screams for a gun ban" Really? There's that paranoia showing up again.
Grow up whack job. It's 2012. Not 1789.
SMH.. you really are a hypocrit. You accuse me of trying to decide what others think but you're trying to put words in my mouth the whole time. My point here is I don't want my rights taken away anymore than you do. We just have different ideas about what our rights are.
Nope, you had decided what I think: about the 2nd Amendment. All anyone has to do is read the above posts, and it's clear as day. And nobody made any of the slightest feint toward taking your rights away. Your paranoia concluded that somebody was but they weren't. Again, all anyone has to do read the above post. And you don't even know that we have different ideas about what our rights are. Yet again you are deciding what I think.
You're just a paranoid absolutist whack job.
Grow up ol' boy. It's 2012. Not 1789.
And you're a liberal lilly livered nut job. Have fun in LOFAN.
David, I've no objection to you "bearing arms"; as long as you are willing to obligate a weekend a month and a month out of every summer to train and maintain your membership in a "well-ordered militia".
Hahahahahahahaha...
David's just got him a new a$$hole drilled and the result is to call me a liberal coward. Don't take your defeat so hard, Whackky Jobby. Use the experience to grow and learn and make yourself better.
Hahahahahahahaha...
Have a good day, whack job.
This could be a campaign issue if it is brought up during the debates, i.e. questioning the candidates on their position on Griswold and Roe and the right to privacy (zone of privacy) in the Constitution!
The problem is., Mitt wouldn't know. How to begin to answer the question. That's IF he even know who Griswold is. And why the case ended up before the Supreme Court in the first place.
Secondly, I would love to see him try and answer it though. Would make for some damn good comedy. Plus Mitt debating the constitution ans Supreme Court Rulings. With Pres Obama who is a Constitutional Lawyer. Not a good idea for Mitt.
Mackle, taking this concept a large step further, it would be interesting to see a requirement that supreme court nominees must, as part of the vetting, write and present for public critique, their version of a constitution for the US in today's world. It should provide interesting insight. And grounds for impeachment when they rule in ways that suggest they were lying.
It is frightening that Justice Scalia is unaware of the Ninth Amendment, which states
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
I suspect Scalia would favor repeal of the 9th.
so how exactly do you get to a right of privacy from the 9th amendment?
The issue/point is that there are no real absolutes under the constitution- other than age restrictions on candidates and the oath of office etc. Justice Scalia does appear to view that the words of a particular section are abosolute to the point of not taking into account the significant economic and social changes since the consitution was adopted.
On the other hand Justice Scalia's point that abortion should not have been a constitutional issue in the first place as it is a legislative issue, is in my view correct. What has happened over the years, and it makes not difference if you have conservative views or liberal views, is that if a group does not get what it wants from the legislature then they go the courts. The result is often confusing decisions with unintended consequences. The Citizens United case being one example, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the recent decision on the ACA being other examples. Under the ACA congress can now apparently levy a tax to shape whatever behavior it deems appropriate.
Why he doesn't change his name from Scalia to Carcinoma is beyond me.. Maybe he can change it to Activist Judge or Super Douchebag you wouldn't trust to watch your cats..
What about Romney's right to privacy to hide his taxes? Ask Romney if he supports that general open door for 'big' government in his life.
There is no right to privacy unless it's the right for the rich and big corporations to hide money and especially hide political monies. And let's not forget their right to hide how they destroy people and the environment. Oh wait, that's not privacy, it's free speech to hide all that. Sorry.
"They also touched on gun control, and Scalia's belief that firearms protected under the Second Amendment must be "hand-carried." He added, in reference to the law, "It's to keep and bear, so it doesn't apply to cannons.""
What about a nuke, Fat Tony? There are pretty powerful nukes one can carry around.
What about chemical or biological weapons? Again many of these are easily carried.
What an addled nitwit. He should be impeached and removed, right along side his ideological corruption buddy "Uncle" Thomas.
Wow I'm impressed you managed to be closed minded and racist in the same post. So what if any guns would you allow the people to bear?
The addled brain of David managed to fly off into unchartered territories of ridiculous logical induction and non sequitur in one post. Yet another example of why most people view these Tea-diots as an unbelievable, uneducated jokes that somehow managed to escape societies' opinion of them as such.
Most people.... I'm really glad I don't live in the socialist paradise you do.....
Yet more soaring ridiculous logical induction and non sequiturs.
And you just have to feel sorry for the poor wingnuts -- four years going on 90 and these tools can't even learn the definition of "Socialist."
What's wrong don't like the tag? You're an absolute joke. You think everyone has to conform to your thinking or it's just not right. Glad we can still think for ourselves for a little while at least.
Socialist paradise? Tag? You simply don't know the definition and you're what, 60, 70 years old?
Hahahahahahaha...
Those on the right love to pretend that they think for themselves when all they do is regurgitate Ideologically Sound/Theologically Correct propaganda.
This coming from a liberal if funny as hell.
DisgustedWithItAlll
Not even close.
Yes, Entropy. The faith must be kept and the ideology is the objective. It is not reason; it is religion. Some people can never escape the black hole gravity fields of things they were indoctrinated with. That is why we have Tea-diots who believe in the absurdities they do, and are currently preventing solutions to the problems their ideas caused.
Yeah really.. the Democrats have never been obstructionists after all......
That's some serious evidence you have there, Whackky Jobby.
Whackky Jobby, coming from a LOFAN liberal that should be a compliment.....
Well, if that's all you got, I guess you're done.
Call for an appointment and we'll go over the therapy you'll need for your a$$ surgery you just had.
Have a good day.
Disgusted...,
You are being to kind to him. People (?) like that deserve to have as bad a day as possible. I'm not really being facetious. His avatar/icon shows a readiness, eagerness even, to overthrow the US Government for purely partisan ideological reasons.
True. The irony of the situation is these people are no more patriots than supporters of the Confederacy, but such irony is lost on these tools.
Looks like we have some naive Rip-van-Winkle later on that slept through the last 20 years, and certainly the last two, who still thinks the country is in some respectable debate using Marquis of Queensbury rules instead of the new ones defined for us by our compatriot wingnuts. Sad that there are still liberals and progressives that don't recognize the malignancy the Tea-diots and related knuckle-draggers have brought to the country and civilized discussion. I guess we have our own willful ignorance on our side not responsible enough to recognize an existential threat when it presents itself. These naifs are ever bit as dangerous as the wingnuts themselves.
"These naifs are ever bit as dangerous as the wingnuts themselves."
Sadly all too true.
"
"
Of course it 'was wrong'... Fat Tony disagrees with it. And in Fat Tony's world that is what decides right and wrong.
Impeach and remove the greasy idiot.
NF- the Justice is correct- just read the Constitution- no generalized right to privacy- to get there you have to infer the concept of "privacy" from other government restricted action- you can disagree with the Justice on this point- but his view it is clearly defensible constitutional jurisprudence position- always has been- what the Justice would say- as others have- is the constitution has an amendment process- and if a provision is now "out of date"- the answer is to go the legislature and do an amendment- not read words into a section just to get a desired result-
Of course, corporations have the right to privately give millions of dollars to a SuperPAC that change the course of elections, but individuals do not have the right to privacy.
How about grenades and grenade launchers? Those are considered hand-held small-arms weaponry too. But I do agree with him that there is no such thing as a 'generalized' right to privacy. The key constitutional common denominator that seems to undermine the first amendment rights has always been " a compelling government interest". As long as government can successfully argue that there is a compelling government interest, there is no violation, since a government's interest always has supremacy over every other concern. Ironically, it is that same constitutional "compelling government interest" standard that also annuls virtuall every legal argument in support of Citizens United. All the government has to argue is that it has a compelling interest in making sure that foreign entities don't DIRECTLY influence the outcome of the elections in tandem with the even more powerful legal argument that legally allowing elections to be influenced in such a disproportionate way by powerful organizations and the elite would seriously undermine the integrity of the democratic experiment itself hence seriously jeopardizing the stability of the whole system without balanced representation.
Conservatives like Scalia love to elevate the Tenth Amendment, but they are perplexed when it comes to the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Conservatives often emphasize their belief that judges must not read individual rights into the Constitution that are not explicitly stated. They do very little to account for the fact that the text of the Constitution itself says that it protects rights beyond those that are explicitly stated.
so did a right to privacy exist at common law when the Constitution was adopted? If so then you may have a good argument- if not- then how can you read that into the 9th amendment-
There may not be a right to privacy, but there sure is a right to religious belief (in so many words) and if one takes the 2nd amendment in total, I would even venture to say that in fact it is referring to the right of the people to bare arms as an army of a free state to protect itself and to keep magazines and arsenals etc rather than the question we are arguing today, because personal guns and swords--as opposed to arms, usually referring to states---were part of ones life--I mean, duels were fought still then, and I don't think there were police forces then--can't remember when the Bobbies were instated in England.-but it was an entirely different time, and i don't think anyone questioned the fact of having guns in the home, as well as swords-- And I think we were declaring our right to have an army and defend ourselves as a country and a free state--
In his criticism of Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Scalia makes it all too clear that his decisions on the bench are not a result of fidelity to the Constitution, the law or even what's best for the people of the United States, but rather what's most convenient for the Roman Catholic church.
As for his opinion on gun rights, Scalia apparently thinks that the Second Amendment's first two clauses, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state" mean nothing, and that the Framers of the Constitution, in and for all their timeless wisdom that should not be ignored or interpreted (in the Originalists' view), apparently began the Amendment with those ten words for no reason other than charming poetic effect.
Lastly, his statement as to the supposed lack of "generalized right to privacy" could only be made by someone with no familiarity with, or respect for, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that expressly prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures."
The man is a sickening disgrace to his office.
A.L.- you may a be a constitutional scholar- but how do you get a right of privacy from the the 4th amendment- as I recall there was not right of privacy at common law- in any event- the Supreme Court in Roe and in other cases- has implied such a concept and that as the say the law of land- that said there is certainly a legitmate basis to suggest that the court went to far in cases like Roe etc ( and the issue is not whether abortion is a good thing or not) - but to suggest that the Justice has no familiarity with the 4th amendment goes to far- -
There may not be a right to privacy, but there sure is a right to religious belief (in so many words) and taking the 2nd amendment in total, I would venture to say that it refers to the right of people bearing arms in defense of a free state and the right of that state to keep arms in arsenals and magazine to supply the militias in times of attack, as opposed to the controversy it is used to defend today. In the 18th century, guns and swords were a right of passage--duels were still fought then---even in "civilized" in Europe ---and I don't think the "Bobbies" had been introduced in England yet--so guns and swords were a given, as opposed to what the constitution was about, which was breaking away from the country it was apart of and declaring we had the right to our own army and defense.