[linskyjack]

I appreciate the fact that you understand that there are certain cases in which the court has to step in-----Believe it or not, I have no problem with deference to the Constitution whenever possible.

[Mulderator]

By the way--for those of you who don't know what Griswold is, here is the summary:

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment.

Here is the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=381&invol=479

But the case has come to stand for a much broader proposition than finding that an anti-contraception law violated the Constitution. They spoke extensively of the "zones of privacy". Not the first time the concept was broached by the court or the right to privacy acknolwedged, but the first time is was so broad and sweeping and dealt with the issue of sexual relationships.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I appreciate the fact that you understand that there are certain cases in which the court has to step in-----Believe it or not, I have no problem with deference to the Constitution whenever possible.

Griswold is one of the best example of that.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

By the way--for those of you who don't know what Griswold is, here is the summary:



Here is the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=381&invol=479

But the case has come to stand for a much broader proposition than finding that an anti-contraception law violated the Constitution. They spoke extensively of the "zones of privacy". Not the first time the concept was broached by the court or the right to privacy acknolwedged, but the first time is was so broad and sweeping and dealt with the issue of sexual relationships.

Thanks for posting that!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by bassetman

You mean they could put an end to Plutocracy?

No--they would put an end to our economic system as we know it and we'd be the worst off for it.

[DiSaidSo]

Originally Posted by Mulder

No--they would put an end to our economic system as we know it and we'd be the worst off for it.

Mainly because money and work would become worthless. If we all got the same amount of money for varying levels of work, no one would ever want to better themselves to move up the ranks in a company or get an education for a better high paying job. We'd just all be slackers, fryin our fries and munchin our granola, knowing that we're getting the same amount of cash that the guy who just did a heart transplant is going to get. What a sweet sweet life economic collapse could be!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

We'd just all be slackers, fryin our fries and munchin our granola, knowing that we're getting the same amount of cash that the guy who just did a heart transplant is going to get. What a sweet sweet life economic collapse could be!

Well for many of the liberals, that's social utopia. They believe the guy that mows your lawn should get just as much as the doctor who cares for you. Of course, if it were mainly minorities that were doctors and white people mowing your lawn, the liberals wouldn't have any problem with that system!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Mainly because money and work would become worthless. If we all got the same amount of money for varying levels of work, no one would ever want to better themselves to move up the ranks in a company or get an education for a better high paying job. We'd just all be slackers, fryin our fries and munchin our granola, knowing that we're getting the same amount of cash that the guy who just did a heart transplant is going to get. What a sweet sweet life economic collapse could be!

Hey Di, could you imagine the LNBA? (Liberal NBA)? Women and men would be playing together. Kobe would have to hop around on one foot and shoot left handed--Shaq and Dirk would have to play on their knees. Iverson would not be allowed to drive to the hoop. They'd have all kinds of rules to equal the playing field!

[DiSaidSo]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Well for many of the liberals, that's social utopia. They believe the guy that mows your lawn should get just as much as the doctor who cares for you. Of course, if it were mainly minorities that were doctors and white people mowing your lawn, the liberals wouldn't have any problem with that system!

Guess it's no use talking to them about motivation? Or goals? Or specialized skills? Why do liberals hate money so much?

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Mainly because money and work would become worthless. If we all got the same amount of money for varying levels of work, no one would ever want to better themselves to move up the ranks in a company or get an education for a better high paying job. We'd just all be slackers, fryin our fries and munchin our granola, knowing that we're getting the same amount of cash that the guy who just did a heart transplant is going to get. What a sweet sweet life economic collapse could be!

And that isn't happening now?

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Guess it's no use talking to them about motivation? Or goals? Or specialized skills? Why do liberals hate money so much?

Oh, they don't hate it......it's the EARN word that they have a tough time with

[DiSaidSo]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Hey Di, could you imagine the LNBA? (Liberal NBA)? Women and men would be playing together. Kobe would have to hop around on one foot and shoot left handed--Shaq and Dirk would have to play on their knees. Iverson would not be allowed to drive to the hoop. They'd have all kinds of rules to equal the playing field!

Hee! That's a funny picture. Maybe Shaq can also be penalized if he makes too many free throws. Oh. Wait. Um.... bad example. I meant... Maybe Shaq can get penalized if he blocks too many shots? Maybe Steve Nash can have a cap put on how many baskets he can make in a quarter?

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Hee! That's a funny picture. Maybe Shaq can also be penalized if he makes too many free throws. Oh. Wait. Um.... bad example. I meant... Maybe Shaq can get penalized if he blocks too many shots? Maybe Steve Nash can have a cap put on how many baskets he can make in a quarter?

Can we pull hair?

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by Mulder

They'd have all kinds of rules to equal the playing field!

LEVEL the playing field.....LEVEL

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by DiSaidSo

Hee! That's a funny picture. Maybe Shaq can also be penalized if he makes too many free throws. Oh. Wait. Um.... bad example. I meant... Maybe Shaq can get penalized if he blocks too many shots? Maybe Steve Nash can have a cap put on how many baskets he can make in a quarter?

Speaking of which, that was some game last night--bet you were happy with the result, even though you love Nash!

I think the commercials are hilarious too--the guy who tells Nash he was the "MP3" and Nash says no he was the "MVP" and the guy tells Nash he speaks Canadian and doesn't understand English!