Can't wait to hear the screams about the ACLU on this one...

[Ben Kenobi]

"Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy

Surely, childrearing has great significance and personal intimacy, and ought not to face state intervention. Therefore, why should a mother be punished for killing the child she is raising?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Law school.

Well, we get both sides. We, of course, get the history of substantive due process... at least the explosion of those cases in the Lochner Era and then in the post Griswold Era. We also read a lot of Scalia dissents and other stuff which casts down on the whole concept of substantive due process.

It is interesting, is it not, that Scalia would have been a harsh critic of Lochner?

The problem remains, does it not, that if Lochner was wrong, and the Supremes said it was wrong in many different ways including that substantive due process did not exist, what is the current theory as to why Lochner is wrong but Griswold and Roe v. Wade are right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is interesting, is it not, that Scalia would have been a harsh critic of Lochner?

Not really... unlike what the leftists say about Scalia, he ain't a super-conservative who'll abandon his beliefs on the drop of a hat. He's taken MANY positions that have rankled conservatives.

The problem remains, does it not, that if Lochner was wrong, and the Supremes said it was wrong in many different ways including that substantive due process did not exist, what is the current theory as to why Lochner is wrong but Griswold and Roe v. Wade are right.

Because they said so . That's basically what it comes down to. They don't believe in 'economic rights' (ie, right to contract) being inherant in the Constitution, but personal rights are.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No clue what the justification is, but between Limbaugh and the ACLU, only one of them has had a consistent position on this matter, and it ain't Limbaugh. His concern for privacy seems to only come into play when his ass is on the line:

"I agree with the view, best articulated by Judge Robert Bork, that there is no basis in the Constitution for the privacy right which was announced as the foundational basis for the constitutional right to abortion. " - The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 56 Jul 2, 1992

search and seizure and the judicially invented docriine in Row v wade are entirely different. even liberals like roland will tell youn that.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Here's just three off the top of my head:

1) No worldwide flood that wiped out all of humanity except 8 people ever occured, and the dimensions given for the Ark are scientifically impossible for a ship of such material.

Begins chanting to prevent HIS return

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by TCO
search and seizure and the judicially invented docriine in Row v wade are entirely different. even liberals like roland will tell youn that.

Which is irrelevant in this context, because Limbaugh was arguing there was no right to privacy.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Which is irrelevant in this context, because Limbaugh was arguing there was no right to privacy.

I'm almost blind in terms of impairment...so must say, no, I mean something else.

[Boris Godunov]

My mistake, I assumed you were on-topic.

[TCO]

I was.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It is interesting, is it not, that Scalia would have been a harsh critic of Lochner?

Not really... unlike what the leftists say about Scalia, he ain't a super-conservative who'll abandon his beliefs on the drop of a hat. He's taken MANY positions that have rankled conservatives.

The problem remains, does it not, that if Lochner was wrong, and the Supremes said it was wrong in many different ways including that substantive due process did not exist, what is the current theory as to why Lochner is wrong but Griswold and Roe v. Wade are right.

Because they said so . That's basically what it comes down to. They don't believe in 'economic rights' (ie, right to contract) being inherant in the Constitution, but personal rights are.

The real question is whether the right to contract has anything to do with our concepts of liberty at the time of the enactment of either the 5th or 14th Amendments.

It would interesting to see what the term liberty meant to people of that era.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran, an interesting contextual fact concerning the second amendment was the purpose. That was so that the people could revolt in the case of tyranny. Under that context, you can make a convincing argument that automatic weapons should have been kept legal, and handguns could be banned. You resist a modern army with the former, the latter is of limited use (except for assassination). Before people talk about that as crazy, it's exactly what the Swiss do, but for a different though related reason - keep fully automatic military rifles in their houses.

Ben, two things. First, it is fallacious reasoning that since scholars were wrong in the past, then they will be wrong now. I can make the same argument reference the bible, after all since the books which consist the new testament have been revised, that obviously means an error was made, so why should we trust that any of the books included were the correct ones. Maybe the gnostic heretics were correct! Of course I'm leaving out little things like context, as to the suppresion of the gnostic texts, and the reformation (revision of the books of the Bible).

Context. The Bible is a book of faith, and definitely includes allegories, etc. Since it has very obvious mis-attributions (multiple authors for one book long "considered" to be by one author - look at some of the letters) that does not invalidate the truth. It does, however, mean that as a "factual" source it has it's own aspects that are suspect. Plus you have all the people who quote it without going back to the source texts. My wife reads Hebrew, has a "Jewish Bible" with the full Hebrew texts, and it is interesting to see some of the weak translations out there. If you read Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek my respect for you goes up about three notches. Otherwise, your relying on translations that are constantly being revised, which obviously means you can't trust them .

There may be historical fact in a book of Faith, just like you may have information about the reformation in a history book. However, that does not make the history book a book of Faith, just like the historical facts do not make the book of Faith a history book. The analogy is imperfect, but I hope you see my point. For example, we know there was a flood, but we also know it didn't "cover the earth". If you say prove it, well, Ben, are you willing to walk unprotected into a nuclear reactor? The proof dismissed, very creatively by the Biblical literalists is based on the same science (various kinds of radioactive decay based dating). If that's wrong, than the reactor is safe. Or are you saying God deliberately created a deceptive world (the devil per se doesn't create)? What an interesting deity he is then.

Of course, the Big Bang theory came from a cleric, so one can have "faith" and still not subscribe to the literalist interpetation of the Bible, and realize it was meant as guidance, not a science or history text. God obviously understood the people to whom he gave the Bible. I could not think of a better way to explain the basic of the creation of the world to an iron age people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by TCO
I was.

We want evidence that you are not fabricating a lie under oath.

[Ned]

Shawn, that is not just an argument about the 2nd Amendment, that is the stated purpose of the Amendment in the Amendment itself. As well, the Supremes said that the Amendment only protects military weapons.

The question no one seem to address is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the States through the 14th Amendment. Is the right to keep and bear arms an aspect of Liberty?

[Ned]

An interesting aspect of this case are his maid and her supplier. They were blackmailing him big time, threatening to expose Rush. Then they did a deal with the local prosecutor for immunity and did expose Rush for more money from the tabloids.

The prosecutor is after Rush for criminal activity in connection with his addiction and has given a pass to blackmailers.