General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsyellerpup
(12,252 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)One of the reasons privacy will be such a big deal this century.
It's not just about abortion, it's about the next 20 years. In the '20s and '30s it was the role of government. '50s and '60s it was civil rights. The next two decades are going to be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cell phones. I'm talking about health records and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this? -Sam, The West Wing, The Short List (1999)
Griswold v. Connecticut:
Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Justice Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional.
Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings, most notably in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. For the most part, the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism" by many conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
yellerpup
(12,252 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)changed prior rulings on birth control and abortion, it would create a big, big problem with regard to confidence and trust in the Court.
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Kennah
(14,234 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I apologize for that thing with Eddie Veder!
Please please please forgive me!
Pleeeeeeease, take me back!
(and I'll try not to take so long)
annabanana
(52,791 posts)And dead on.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)PCIntern
(25,479 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)..every single time. He is just brilliant.
Uncle Joe
(58,282 posts)Thanks for the thread, kpete.
kpete
(71,961 posts)Uncle Joe
peace, kpete
Efilroft Sul
(3,578 posts)Brought to you by the party that wants to get government off your back (Reagan 3:16) and into your pants.
moriah
(8,311 posts).... you'd think they'd be all for making it illegal NOT to give a woman an orgasm.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)of church leaders telling women what to do with their bodies??
Why should the government impose its secular will on religious institutions??
Oh, the horror!!!
Skittles
(153,111 posts)he's a guy who truly GETS IT; yes INDEED
WillyT
(72,631 posts)varelse
(4,062 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In response to wil swings to the right, the part which opposes it (but which has a moral compass that is slightly on the blink) takes up a position that they think sounds reasonable in opposition to and defined by the wacky right argument.
Thus, the "moderate" position is born and no one notices how much it resembles the Republican positions of yesteryear before the wacky right-wing came out.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Sensible moderates and "he would have given the penises"
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)I have a new favorite cartoonist.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)He's been my favorite since:
and then, years later....
He's the best!
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Kennah
(14,234 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and absolutely on the mark.
K&R