Let's not make the mistake of assuming Trump picked Gorsuch.
Trump was advised to pick Gorsuch by the Republican Party.
That's not even unusual, I don't think, but using Trump's personal politics and knowledge as a measuring stick I think is an incorrect way to look at it.
Replace "Trump" with "The GOP" in that post and nothing changes.
The Republican party is deeply deeply misogynistic and are absolutely firmly against women's rights and have been for a long time. Their picks for judges should be expected to be no different..
Indeed. If women, espescially poor women, get maternity leave then they will be more capable of remaining in the workplace and becoming educated. So they will then vote more, and more democratic.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
He has specifically answered questions about both Roe and Obergefell today, saying he respects precedent while refusing to answer 'litmus test' questions.
I think your reading is wrong. Certainly overturning Lawrence would be odd from him - Scalia was in the majority on that one!
+1
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
I don't doubt it, but I also haven't seen a lot of pro-privacy rulings recently, and a few explicitly anti-privacy rulings.
"Right to privacy" seems to be a pretty fluid definition.
The concept of super-stare decisis (or "super-precedent") was mentioned during the interrogations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the chair of that committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op/ed in the New York Times referring to Roe as a "super-precedent." He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
I don't doubt it, but I also haven't seen a lot of pro-privacy rulings recently, and a few explicitly anti-privacy rulings.
"Right to privacy" seems to be a pretty fluid definition.
Rights are never unlimited? I don't understand your point
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
He has specifically answered questions about both Roe and Obergefell today, saying he respects precedent while refusing to answer 'litmus test' questions.
I think your reading is wrong. Certainly overturning Lawrence would be odd from him - Scalia was in the majority on that one!
That's not true
Scalia famously argued in the Lawrence dissent that we can criminalize gross things like gay sex
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
+19
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent
It's not. Perhaps the most glaring hole in the Constitution.
It's not in the Constitution, but it's been ruled on so much that it has become what they call a "super precedent", something that should be very hard to overturn.
It really hasn't. A privacy right is more broad in scope than a 4th amendment protection and would cover things such as private emails sent from a corporate account (we differ from the EU in this), protection against aggregated data collection, protection against government collusion with business to do 3rd party monitoring, a Do Not Call list, abolition of laws asserting a duty to produce identification for the police while in public, an overhaul of copyright, the ability to compel the govt to produce records they have gathered about you, legality of jamming equipment or surveillance countermeasures....
A right to privacy includes whatever we decide it does. I disagree fundamentally with the originalist position here because any right about privacy necessarily presumes a right to privacy. Rights are empty, and only include what we deem they include. (I have read a convincing argument for euthanasia and fulfilled life from the basis of the right to life.) It may be that the founding fathers only believed the right to privacy included the specific rights they detailed, but that doesn't mean they believed there was no right to privacy. Not everything on your list needs to be included, but that the founding fathers didn't include them doesn't mean they'd see them as outside of the constitution.
As perhaps an aside, the 4th is not the only thing for a right to privacy. The 1st also adds something to the right to privacy, as, say, unwarranted listening in on private groups is an obvious abridgement. Rights in the bill of rights are multidimensional, they fit and guarantee multiple abstract rights. (The layerdness of rights is common within rights-based philosophies.)
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
He has specifically answered questions about both Roe and Obergefell today, saying he respects precedent while refusing to answer 'litmus test' questions.
I think your reading is wrong. Certainly overturning Lawrence would be odd from him - Scalia was in the majority on that one!
That's not true
Scalia famously argued in the Lawrence dissent that we can criminalize gross things like gay sex
Whoops, my mistake!
Reading the wiki article, it seems like accepting that Lawrence was decided wrongly according to Scalia's logic would also bolster Roe.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent
It's not. Perhaps the most glaring hole in the Constitution.
It's not in the Constitution, but it's been ruled on so much that it has become what they call a "super precedent", something that should be very hard to overturn.
It really hasn't. A privacy right is more broad in scope than a 4th amendment protection and would cover things such as private emails sent from a corporate account (we differ from the EU in this), protection against aggregated data collection, protection against government collusion with business to do 3rd party monitoring, a Do Not Call list, abolition of laws asserting a duty to produce identification for the police while in public, an overhaul of copyright, the ability to compel the govt to produce records they have gathered about you, legality of jamming equipment or surveillance countermeasures....
A right to privacy includes whatever we decide it does. I disagree fundamentally with the originalist position here because any right about privacy necessarily presumes a right to privacy. Rights are empty, and only include what we deem they include. (I have read a convincing argument for euthanasia and fulfilled life from the basis of the right to life.) It may be that the founding fathers only believed the right to privacy included the specific rights they detailed, but that doesn't mean they believed there was no right to privacy. Not everything on your list needs to be included, but that the founding fathers didn't include them doesn't mean they'd see them as outside of the constitution.
As perhaps an aside, the 4th is not the only thing for a right to privacy. The 1st also adds something to the right to privacy, as, say, unwarranted listening in on private groups is an obvious abridgement. Rights in the bill of rights are multidimensional, they fit and guarantee multiple abstract rights. (The layerdness of rights is common within rights-based philosophies.)
Well, yeah, I guess my point is that the "right to privacy" encompasses a whole lot of things, and asking someone "do you think there is precedent for a right to privacy" is kind of a nonsense question without specifying a context.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
He has specifically answered questions about both Roe and Obergefell today, saying he respects precedent while refusing to answer 'litmus test' questions.
I think your reading is wrong. Certainly overturning Lawrence would be odd from him - Scalia was in the majority on that one!
That's not true
Scalia famously argued in the Lawrence dissent that we can criminalize gross things like gay sex
Whoops, my mistake!
Reading the wiki article, it seems like accepting that Lawrence was decided wrongly according to Scalia's logic would also bolster Roe.
No. Scalia was lawyer burned with his dissent in Lawrence. In the Lawrence dissent Scalia was like "if we take this logic then we can do things like make gay marriage legal!" and then later the court was like "you're right Scalia, we can make gay marriage legal"
+9
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent
It's not. Perhaps the most glaring hole in the Constitution.
It's not in the Constitution, but it's been ruled on so much that it has become what they call a "super precedent", something that should be very hard to overturn.
It really hasn't. A privacy right is more broad in scope than a 4th amendment protection and would cover things such as private emails sent from a corporate account (we differ from the EU in this), protection against aggregated data collection, protection against government collusion with business to do 3rd party monitoring, a Do Not Call list, abolition of laws asserting a duty to produce identification for the police while in public, an overhaul of copyright, the ability to compel the govt to produce records they have gathered about you, legality of jamming equipment or surveillance countermeasures....
A right to privacy includes whatever we decide it does. I disagree fundamentally with the originalist position here because any right about privacy necessarily presumes a right to privacy. Rights are empty, and only include what we deem they include. (I have read a convincing argument for euthanasia and fulfilled life from the basis of the right to life.) It may be that the founding fathers only believed the right to privacy included the specific rights they detailed, but that doesn't mean they believed there was no right to privacy. Not everything on your list needs to be included, but that the founding fathers didn't include them doesn't mean they'd see them as outside of the constitution.
As perhaps an aside, the 4th is not the only thing for a right to privacy. The 1st also adds something to the right to privacy, as, say, unwarranted listening in on private groups is an obvious abridgement. Rights in the bill of rights are multidimensional, they fit and guarantee multiple abstract rights. (The layerdness of rights is common within rights-based philosophies.)
Well, yeah, I guess my point is that the "right to privacy" encompasses a whole lot of things, and asking someone "do you think there is precedent for a right to privacy" is kind of a nonsense question without specifying a context.
Oh I agree, though the originalist/textualist position is kinda fucked up because it holds that there is no such right at all and therefore any breach is permissible as long as it doesn't break what was possible in the 18th century and/or the more obvious privacy related rights previously established.
It's a silly question, because logically anyone should assent to a precedent for a right to privacy. One can only argue over what is included in that right.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
He has specifically answered questions about both Roe and Obergefell today, saying he respects precedent while refusing to answer 'litmus test' questions.
I think your reading is wrong. Certainly overturning Lawrence would be odd from him - Scalia was in the majority on that one!
That's not true
Scalia famously argued in the Lawrence dissent that we can criminalize gross things like gay sex
Whoops, my mistake!
Reading the wiki article, it seems like accepting that Lawrence was decided wrongly according to Scalia's logic would also bolster Roe.
Accepting his logic in that dissent would have horrid ripple effects for many people. It's one of his grossest dissents.
Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent
It's not. Perhaps the most glaring hole in the Constitution.
But the Ninth Amendment says there exist rights that aren't listed; isn't that, alone, enough for the courts to enforce a right to privacy? Serious question; at a glance it looks like it should be, but I'm hardly a Constitutional law scholar.
Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent
It's not. Perhaps the most glaring hole in the Constitution.
But the Ninth Amendment says there exist rights that aren't listed; isn't that, alone, enough for the courts to enforce a right to privacy? Serious question; at a glance it looks like it should be, but I'm hardly a Constitutional law scholar.
Yes. So long as that right had precedent in common or statutory law.
When Gorsuch is saying that privacy does not have established precedent he is saying he would overturn RvW
Gorsuch refuses to say right to privacy is established precedent
It's not. Perhaps the most glaring hole in the Constitution.
But the Ninth Amendment says there exist rights that aren't listed; isn't that, alone, enough for the courts to enforce a right to privacy? Serious question; at a glance it looks like it should be, but I'm hardly a Constitutional law scholar.
Between the 9th and the 4th it's pretty blatent yes.
+2
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Schumer suggesting moving forward on confirmation is irresponsible while FBI probe is ongoing.
Not wrong.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
"If Judge Gorsuch can't receive 60 votes in the Senate can anyone nominated by a Republican president?" - McConnell
Maybe you should have thought of that when you blocked the Democratic nominee for 2/3 of a year, Mitch!
The alternative is previously in a situation like this they would pick a moderate jurist they could get 60 votes for. Like obama did with meric garland.
Schumer suggesting moving forward on confirmation is irresponsible while FBI probe is ongoing.
Not wrong.
I wish (but doubt) someone would ask Gorsuch "if it is found President Trump colluded with a foreign power in his bid for the Presidency, would you agree to retire from the bench immediately, lest all your decisions be tainted?"
Only probably a bit less snarky, but I think the point is valid.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
Could someone really briefly tell me how Obergefell was linked to privacy? I'd thought it was... something else, though I honestly can't recall what.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
It's called the Ginsburg standard. Comment on your previous judgement and writing but not how you would rule on other things.
Watching this, my first thought was: finally a possible appointee that knows how to play the goddamn game. I can't believe how this administration has warped my expectations of congressional hearings.
Schumer suggesting moving forward on confirmation is irresponsible while FBI probe is ongoing.
Not wrong.
I wish (but doubt) someone would ask Gorsuch "if it is found President Trump colluded with a foreign power in his bid for the Presidency, would you agree to retire from the bench immediately, lest all your decisions be tainted?"
Only probably a bit less snarky, but I think the point is valid.
I think a senate confirmation shields him from any taint resulting from a possible Trump impeachment. Nixon appointed Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist...
After the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, you advocated President Bush issue a signing statement to accompany the law. In an e-mail you sent…you said the signing statement would, and I quote, these are your words, inoculate against the potential of having the administration criticized some time in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogation policy in light of the McCain portion of the amendment. This statement clearly, and in a normal way that would be hard to dispute later, puts down a marker to the effect that McCain is best read as essentially codifying existing administrative policies, unquote. To be clear, the context was that, earlier in 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that CIA interrogation tactics like waterboarding and sleep deprivation did not mean cruel treatment. Saying that Senator McCain's amendment actually codified them was not true. Doesn't it mean that, when you wrote this e-mail, you were condoning waterboarding?
Anyone who writes that passage she quotes should be smacked with Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" regardless of the moral abomination it was defending.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Franken is laying into Gorsuch over the frozen trucker case.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
Kennedy is basically Roberts but friendly to gay people. He's pretty partisan.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yeah, even considering the 4th Amendment, I don't think recent rulings have been in line with the idea that there's a right to privacy.
Specifically phrasing it as, "Is there established precedent for a right to privacy?" I'm pretty sure the correct answer to that is, "No," even though I disagree with the precedent.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
Could someone really briefly tell me how Obergefell was linked to privacy? I'd thought it was... something else, though I honestly can't recall what.
The privacy right partly relied on in Obergefell is basically this: The government lacks the authority to intrude on your private romantic life without a good reason
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
Nope, I don't think it has to be an "R vs D court" to say that the president/party gets a benefit from appointing someone who better reflects their viewpoint to the court.
I'm not sure I've heard of a candidate refusing to answer litmus tests
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
Nope, I don't think it has to be an "R vs D court" to say that the president/party gets a benefit from appointing someone who better reflects their viewpoint to the court.
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.
Posts
Indeed. If women, espescially poor women, get maternity leave then they will be more capable of remaining in the workplace and becoming educated. So they will then vote more, and more democratic.
That is incorrect
The Supreme Court explicitly recognized a right to "privacy" in 1965
It's the right at issue in Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage cases
When Gorsuch refuses to recognize the right exists, he is signaling that he would overturn Roe and Lawrence and Obergefell if he had the chance
He has specifically answered questions about both Roe and Obergefell today, saying he respects precedent while refusing to answer 'litmus test' questions.
I think your reading is wrong. Certainly overturning Lawrence would be odd from him - Scalia was in the majority on that one!
I don't doubt it, but I also haven't seen a lot of pro-privacy rulings recently, and a few explicitly anti-privacy rulings.
"Right to privacy" seems to be a pretty fluid definition.
Nope, it's come up before! The term itself started in the '70s, but has mostly been used to describe Roe v. Wade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent#.22Super_stare_decisis.22
Rights are never unlimited? I don't understand your point
That's not true
Scalia famously argued in the Lawrence dissent that we can criminalize gross things like gay sex
A right to privacy includes whatever we decide it does. I disagree fundamentally with the originalist position here because any right about privacy necessarily presumes a right to privacy. Rights are empty, and only include what we deem they include. (I have read a convincing argument for euthanasia and fulfilled life from the basis of the right to life.) It may be that the founding fathers only believed the right to privacy included the specific rights they detailed, but that doesn't mean they believed there was no right to privacy. Not everything on your list needs to be included, but that the founding fathers didn't include them doesn't mean they'd see them as outside of the constitution.
As perhaps an aside, the 4th is not the only thing for a right to privacy. The 1st also adds something to the right to privacy, as, say, unwarranted listening in on private groups is an obvious abridgement. Rights in the bill of rights are multidimensional, they fit and guarantee multiple abstract rights. (The layerdness of rights is common within rights-based philosophies.)
Whoops, my mistake!
Reading the wiki article, it seems like accepting that Lawrence was decided wrongly according to Scalia's logic would also bolster Roe.
Well, yeah, I guess my point is that the "right to privacy" encompasses a whole lot of things, and asking someone "do you think there is precedent for a right to privacy" is kind of a nonsense question without specifying a context.
"If Judge Gorsuch can't receive 60 votes in the Senate can anyone nominated by a Republican president?" - McConnell
Maybe you should have thought of that when you blocked the Democratic nominee for 2/3 of a year, Mitch!
No. Scalia was lawyer burned with his dissent in Lawrence. In the Lawrence dissent Scalia was like "if we take this logic then we can do things like make gay marriage legal!" and then later the court was like "you're right Scalia, we can make gay marriage legal"
Oh I agree, though the originalist/textualist position is kinda fucked up because it holds that there is no such right at all and therefore any breach is permissible as long as it doesn't break what was possible in the 18th century and/or the more obvious privacy related rights previously established.
It's a silly question, because logically anyone should assent to a precedent for a right to privacy. One can only argue over what is included in that right.
Being listed in the Constitution is not the same as being established SCOTUS precedent.
Accepting his logic in that dissent would have horrid ripple effects for many people. It's one of his grossest dissents.
AHHHHHHHHJHHFNMFLXDB
Sorry but I can't really have any reaction other than that.
Yes. So long as that right had precedent in common or statutory law.
When Gorsuch is saying that privacy does not have established precedent he is saying he would overturn RvW
Between the 9th and the 4th it's pretty blatent yes.
Not wrong.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
It seems the most appropriate response
You get trained on how to inoffensively answer each potential litmus test, and ordinarily that's all that happens when one gets asked
The alternative is previously in a situation like this they would pick a moderate jurist they could get 60 votes for. Like obama did with meric garland.
They traditionally do not, from my recollection.
Also Gorsuch did say that he would have walked out of the meeting if anyone in the Trump admin had asked him how he'd rule on Roe or anything else.
I wish (but doubt) someone would ask Gorsuch "if it is found President Trump colluded with a foreign power in his bid for the Presidency, would you agree to retire from the bench immediately, lest all your decisions be tainted?"
Only probably a bit less snarky, but I think the point is valid.
Garland?
Could someone really briefly tell me how Obergefell was linked to privacy? I'd thought it was... something else, though I honestly can't recall what.
My problem here is that a litmus test for me would be...
"Gorsuch, would you accept a supreme court nomination if it had been prepared for you through illegal and undemocratic means. Such as a political assassination, kidnapping, coercion of a justice or subversion of the political process?"
To which any nominee I would view as acceptable would have to say, "No, I'd refuse such a nomination" and thus, Gorsuch has to refuse THIS nomination. In allowing republicans to benefit, he undermines the independence of the court. The very reason he's saying "I won't talk about these things because this isn't supposed to be partisan" is being obliterated by him not refusing the nomination.
It's called the Ginsburg standard. Comment on your previous judgement and writing but not how you would rule on other things.
Watching this, my first thought was: finally a possible appointee that knows how to play the goddamn game. I can't believe how this administration has warped my expectations of congressional hearings.
I think a senate confirmation shields him from any taint resulting from a possible Trump impeachment. Nixon appointed Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist...
Anyone who writes that passage she quotes should be smacked with Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" regardless of the moral abomination it was defending.
I'm not sure that "allowing Republicans to benefit" is what he's doing. That presumes a R vs D court, which I don't agree is the situation. Kennedy demonstrates how this isn't always guaranteed.
Kennedy is basically Roberts but friendly to gay people. He's pretty partisan.
The privacy right partly relied on in Obergefell is basically this: The government lacks the authority to intrude on your private romantic life without a good reason
Nope, I don't think it has to be an "R vs D court" to say that the president/party gets a benefit from appointing someone who better reflects their viewpoint to the court.
MN senators best senators.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
No Justice is a mortal lock. Even Thomas isn't reliably "conservative" in the political sense. In his dissent in Lawrence he says that the TX law is stupid and if he were in the legislature he'd vote to repeal.