Meet the new Bork, same as the old Bork

[elfs]

Anotonin Scalia has become Robert Bork.

Robert Bork once said that Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that allowed women to discuss birth control with their physicians without the intereference of the government, and which ensured that such a conversation was private, was wrongly ruled: as he famously put it, "The sexual gratification of one group is being elevated the the anguish of another group's moral gratifications. Nowhere in the Constutition do we find the imposition of a heirarchy of gratifications."

Scalia has now embraced this argument fully. There is no right to privacy to be found in the Constution.

Many constitutional scholars feel otherwise. Primarily, they argue that the Sixth Amendment, the one about being required to board soldiers in one's homes, is a specific example of a generalized case: the government may not put monitors into your home without a warrant for a specified reason.

Comments

Re: "Rights" vs. "Constitutional rights"

[omahas.livejournal.com]

But it does change according to the express will of the people. There are three arms to the government, and the judicial arm is not there to simply lay down punishment when a law is violated. It's job is to interpret that law within the framework of the Constitution.

If you think that the Constitution shouldn't be used to interpret for a modern age, then there are tons of amendments that need to be enacted right now because a judicial arm interpreted them already out of the Constitution.

And as far as making law or decisions for an entire nation based on the "momentary whims" of someone, we can always have a conversation regarding the invasion of Iraq…about as classic an example based on the momentary whims of the people (their representatives) as I've seen.

Re: "Rights" vs. "Constitutional rights"

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

When a judge (or the whole Supreme Court) chooses to change the interpretation of the Constitution, he or she is usurping the authority that was specifically assigned to the Legislative branch by the Constitution itself.

This is traditionally known as "rule of men" as opposed to "rule of law." If individuals can change the function of the Constitution, the Constitution has no meaning.

I can also think of many ways in which I would change the Constitution, but I should never be given the authority to make those changes just because I feel strongly about them. Nor should anyone else.

I think we're on the same page regarding Iraq, but that is a different discussion.

. png