[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

In today's court Roe v. Wade wouldn't make it to the Court nor would Griswold and host of other liberal rantings from the 60's and early 70's. It has taken the Court a long time to rein in the concept of "right" to privacy. A ******* legal concept if there ever was one.

No kidding--I laugh at how people think they have this "right to privacy." I'd love to tell the IRS to screw off every April 15--that's the ultimate invasion of a person's privacy--robbing them of 1/3 or more of their income to fund a liberal social agenda. I'd gladly give up the "right" for my daughters to have an abortion in exchange for the right to pay taxes only for those things I think are deserving. I am sure as little Republicans, they would whole heartily agree!

[stormylin]

[QUOTE=Mulder]But where along the line the fetus is is irrelevant to the issue of whether its a "person" under the Constitution. It is NOT a person until its born--whether that's at 5 days, 5 months, 6 months or 9 1/2 months. And in fact you bring up the big dillemma for the liberals/pro abortion crowd--if legally you can abort a "fetus" than you should be able to do it at any point in the pregnancy under the Constitution (if there is truly a right to have an abortion). But the "fiction" created by the court is that the state has an interest in the fetus when its "viable"--why? They have the same damn right anywhere in the pregnancyt. That's a distinction without a real difference. If we get to the point where we can keep fetuses "viable" from Day 1 of the pregnancy, what are the abortionist's going to say then?

This really comes down again to the fact that people can morally accept terminating a 4 week old fetus because it barely looks human, but people are much much more reluctant to do it with a six month old fetus that looks very much like a human baby. And you can parse all the Constitutional minutia you want, but in the end the decision came down to a practical consideration that abortions were going to be done anyway, so they might as well make them legal and then they twisted and contorted the Constitution to find a compromise because they knew damn well if they said the state had no right to prevent abortions at 8 or 9 months, there'd be a rebellion of epic proportions and they all would have been lynched. Anyone that thinks differently and actually believes this "viability" nonsense is kidding themselves.



Well, that's a distinction between viable and non-viable fetus and that should have no bearing whatoever on the homicide issue. The issue for homicide is the killing of a "human being" or "person" and as I said, viable or not, a fetus is NOT a human being or person until born. Viability does nothing to resolve the dilemma of


I'll am certain Mulder and other's will Hate this, but I am of the opinion that if you can't own property, earn wages or make decisions then you are the 'property' of your parents. That is in the case of children.

My opinion is this: that parent's predominately have the most interest in securing the safety and security of their children.

Government on the other hand, has only one focus the safety and security of control, whether it is economic or power- The fact of the matter is, government will Never Care about a child like the Majority of parents do.



I think it is unanimous that if you commit a crime to cause direct harm to anyone, by physical injury a court has the jurisdiction to charge you with a crime. Though the definition of 'harm' is not that easy. Sometimes harm can result in great pain in the short term and result in great gain in the long term.

In the end, under this Constitution of the U.S. government when do we become a 'citizen' or a person that is protected by these rights? My question is when is it that you can make decisions, earn a wage, own property - and property which btw can be a quarter or a castle (without government regulatory restrictions), then you are protected by Constitutional rights that are afforded to you in the Constitution.

Whether a child is in this discussion--- not exactly a child but a fetus, that can't even breath without a host, to me this is a no brainer. I respect life. I prefer a conscience choice to bring a child to term, so that one day, they have an ability to make a choice. I can only wish that adoption is a better choice. But, for the moment, take a 13 year old, and rip them out of their whole life, because someone has mandated that this is the best choice-- It is Federal law that they must carry to term. I can't make this choice for any child. And the fact is, children can become pregnant at 9 years old!!! If we abolish laws of abortion, we Must violate children that are nine years old!! I can't make that choice for a CHILD!! I CAN'T MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR A FAMILY!!! Though, until they have enough cells to make this choice, with all the other ramifications, my opinion stands strong, we Can't take away the rights of a definitive person for any reason, to give rights to a hope of a person...........

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

I do have problems with the extremes of disparity where the head of the company (say Walmart) makes what a 10K TIMES more then his employees.

How much do you think the average Walmart employee gets paid?

And how much do you THINK they should get paid?

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by Mulder

No kidding--I laugh at how people think they have this "right to privacy." I'd love to tell the IRS to screw off every April 15--that's the ultimate invasion of a person's privacy--robbing them of 1/3 or more of their income to fund a liberal social agenda. I'd gladly give up the "right" for my daughters to have an abortion in exchange for the right to pay taxes only for those things I think are deserving. I am sure as little Republicans, they would whole heartily agree!

Speaking of which, did you see where some girl took her clothes off, I think maybe in New Orleans, and she was on the Girls Gone Wild show.....she sued because her privacy was invaded


Yeah, like I have a lot of privacy ripping my clothes off in public
























Like, not that I have EVER done that, mind you............but, in case I wanted to........

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by AcaCandy

Speaking of which, did you see where some girl took her clothes off, I think maybe in New Orleans, and she was on the Girls Gone Wild show.....she sued because her privacy was invaded


Yeah, like I have a lot of privacy ripping my clothes off in public
























Like, not that I have EVER done that, mind you............but, in case I wanted to........

Okay, Mulder's Constitutional Interest is now peaked!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by AcaCandy

Speaking of which, did you see where some girl took her clothes off, I think maybe in New Orleans, and she was on the Girls Gone Wild show.....she sued because her privacy was invaded

I mentioned in another thread--I had a woman consult me on taking her clothes off! I referred her to another attorney because the Girls Gone Wild people fight like hell and usually win because these bimbos are exposing themselves in public so they have no right to privacy. This girl had a great rack too--she exposed herself on a balcony during Mardis Gras and got caught on film by the GGW film crew who was there precisely for that purpose.

I was thinking about having a meeting with her to inspect the evidence, but I thought better of it! (I talked to her on the phone only and she sent me the video)

[izme]

Originally Posted by Candy

Yeah, like I have a lot of privacy ripping my clothes off in public

I must party with you

Originally Posted by Muldy

I mentioned in another thread--I had a woman consult me on taking her clothes off!

what a dream case!

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I mentioned in another thread--I had a woman consult me on taking her clothes off!

Like, let me get this straight....she consulted with you FIRST

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by AcaCandy

Like, let me get this straight....she consulted with you FIRST

Yes--she wasn't sure how far I could take her so she wanted to know what to expect up front!

[Rollin' Rog]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

You may be a little confused as the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. The 14th is a vehicle to impose federal law and judicial decisions on the states.

Perhaps you've missed the subject of many of these posts. It's the inferred right of privacy that the woman has (or anyone for that matter) versus the state's right circumscribe that right where there are tangible and compelling social interests.

You may not like Griswold or Roe or the 14th ammendment privacy issues currently coming under their umbrella, but reversing them is not judicial conservatism -- it is activism, or more precisely reactionism.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Perhaps you've missed the subject of many of these posts. It's the inferred right of privacy that the woman has (or anyone for that matter) versus the state's right circumscribe that right where there are tangible and compelling social interests.

You may not like Griswold or Roe or the 14th ammendment privacy issues currently coming under their umbrella, but reversing them is not judicial conservatism -- it is activism, or more precisely reactionism.

No, you're still confused. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with the "rights" you just spoke of. The 14th Amendment makes decisions of the Supreme Court when interpreting constitutional issue applicable to the states. As I stated, it's the vehicle by which federal judicial decisions are applied to the states. The 14th Amendment creates no "rights"....privacy or otherwise.

[Rollin' Rog]

If you can find anywhere Alito has confirmed your interpretation of the nature of the 14th ammendment, I'll consider it relevant to this thread.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

If you can find anywhere Alito has confirmed your interpretation of the nature of the 14th ammendment, I'll consider it relevant to this thread.

Alito has nothing to do with it. You really are confused. The relevent portion of the 14th Amendment provides as follows:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Simply, those rights afforded to you by the federal Constitution shall now also be imposed on the states. Interpretation of federal constitutional law by the Supreme Court shall also apply to the states as a result of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment doesn't create any new federal rights it just applies those all ready existing rights upon the states. Prior to the 14th there was a battle as to what rights under the federal Constitution applied to the states. Do you see any right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure in the 14th Amendment? So why does it apply to the states? Read the Constitution, the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights ONLY apply to the federal government, not the states. But for the 14th Amendment those prohibitions or, if you prefer, restrictions on the federal government would not also apply to the states.
That is what is meant by my statement that the 14th is a vehicle through which the Supreme Court decisions on constitutional law is applied to the states.
Geezzz, RR, you usually aren't this thick. I could understand if it was Bassetman.

[plschwartz]

Mulder:
I suggest that the siyuation in the US is not the best there can be.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...+ceo+pay&hl=en

In 1988 US Ceo pay was ~ $750000 twice that of the average of other industrialied nations
By 2003 the rest of the world CEO pay doubled but US tripled (and that is w/o total compensation.

But http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...otal-chart.htm
Suggests that with options total pay is 10x to 20x base pay

The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay at that company AVERAGES 407 times http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/EE2005_pr.html

Other studies have shown that CEO pay and increasing profits are not well linked.

You might also want to look at GINI a comparision of wealth inequality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality
data is not great but perfectly adequate to show that our position is not with industrialized democracies but with third world countries below cambodia and above turkimenistan

[Rollin' Rog]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Alito has nothing to do with it.

Say what?

This thread is not about the 14th amendment per se. This thread is not about my interpretation of the law. This thread is not about your interpretation of the 14th amendment or the law.

It IS about Alito, and how he is likely to handle the issues coming before the court based on his past rulings.

If you disagree with Alito's rulings -- fine, but take the trouble to read the ones that apply and you will see that he is indeed a "Conservative" justice. He is not trying to turn the clock back to a radically narrow and literal interpretation of the 14th.

Read the New Jersey Muslim case. Or even the Family Medical Leave case where he dissents -- he dissents on a finding of fact, not interpretation of what is covered under the 14th -- gender discrimination in that instance.