tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post8384969570648988674..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Don't say I didn't warn youRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30691396196185957992018-11-04T07:55:34.252-08:002018-11-04T07:55:34.252-08:00> "Well, if my argument is wrong, then thi...> "Well, if my argument is wrong, then this other argument (which I think is wrong) might cover it, so either way, I'm covered."<br /><br />This is a very common mode of reasoning in the law.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative<br /><br />You should read that article, and pay particular attention to the last sentence:<br /><br />"OccasionallyRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-70157829362800823882018-11-04T00:42:49.495-07:002018-11-04T00:42:49.495-07:00Cookies, Part 2
Furthermore, the dissent in Plann...<b>Cookies, Part 2</b><br /><br /><i>Furthermore,</i> the dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey informs us that no such "right to abortion" could be protected under the Ninth Amendment, as it wasn't considered a right:<br /><br /><i>"Nor do the historical traditions of the American people support the view that the right to terminate one's pregnancy is "fundamental.&Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-82386626154120634602018-11-04T00:42:21.673-07:002018-11-04T00:42:21.673-07:00In truth, they would have found a right to abortio...<b>In truth, they would have found a right to abortion if the Constitution was a recipe for chocolate-chip cookies</b><br /><br />>> Justice Blackmun rejected the District Court invoking the Ninth Amendment<br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>No, he didn't. He just said that the 14th amendment argument was stronger.</i><br /><br />Let's review the passage you quoted again, with emphasis:<Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-79479501966895267662018-11-03T10:04:39.313-07:002018-11-03T10:04:39.313-07:00> Justice Blackmun rejected the District Court ...> Justice Blackmun rejected the District Court invoking the Ninth Amendment<br /><br />No, he didn't. He just said that the 14th amendment argument was stronger.<br /><br />"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-43330273134293257752018-11-03T00:06:23.656-07:002018-11-03T00:06:23.656-07:00. . . hand, don't fight with each other and a.... . . hand, don't fight with each other and are on message every day -- their communist masters have trained and disciplined them well. <br /><br />Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-61251441509505240262018-11-03T00:05:46.482-07:002018-11-03T00:05:46.482-07:00Ha
@Ron:
>I think there's a quietly hatche...<b>Ha</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>I think there's a quietly hatched plot somewhere deep inside the vast right wing conspiracy . . .</i><br /><br />Ha, the Republicans can't stop fighting with each other - do you really think they could be so organized to actually be running a vast right wing conspiracy?<br /><br />The democrats, on the other Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-74562426037985343692018-11-03T00:01:47.894-07:002018-11-03T00:01:47.894-07:00"Three generations of imbeciles are enough&qu...<b>"Three generations of imbeciles are enough"</b><br /><br />>>Birthright citizenship, then, means what it says until it doesn’t anymore.<br /><br /><i>>The difference is that birthright citizenship is defined in the Constitution itself. The Constitution, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional.</i><br /><br />Sure, tell that to Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, or Carrie Buck.<br /Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30783892282842809742018-11-03T00:00:14.248-07:002018-11-03T00:00:14.248-07:00Sow Discord, Reap the Whirlwind
Justice Thomas wr...<b>Sow Discord, Reap the Whirlwind</b><br /><br /><b>Justice Thomas writes in his dissent:</b><br /><i>"The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the<br />Constitution, but with the principles upon which our<br />Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been<br />understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement<br />to government benefits. The Framers Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-5403560080286095072018-11-02T23:59:21.276-07:002018-11-02T23:59:21.276-07:00Scalia's dissent, continued
"But we need...<b>Scalia's dissent, continued</b><br /><br /><i>"But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth<br />Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited<br />marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted<br />the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these<br />cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a<br />vague constitutional provision—such as “due process ofPubliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-59877426302070127502018-11-02T23:58:31.868-07:002018-11-02T23:58:31.868-07:00Robert's Dissent, Continued; Scalia begins
&q...<b>Robert's Dissent, Continued; Scalia begins</b><br /><br /><i>"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not<br />about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage<br />should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is<br />instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that<br />decision should rest with the people acting through their<br />elected Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-45009231471064471372018-11-02T23:57:26.775-07:002018-11-02T23:57:26.775-07:00PBR Streetgang to Almighty, come in Almighty"...<b>PBR Streetgang to Almighty, come in Almighty"</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>I'm perfectly fine with them redefining legal terms when the existing definitions result in the denial of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment.</i><br /><br />Remember that, when a "redefining of legal terms" goes against what you think is right and just.<br /><Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-41562232079636123352018-11-02T23:56:21.298-07:002018-11-02T23:56:21.298-07:00Rhenquist's Dissent, continued
"There ap...<b>Rhenquist's Dissent, continued</b><br /><br /><i>"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69353217007768247192018-11-02T23:55:48.859-07:002018-11-02T23:55:48.859-07:00Judicial Fiat
@Ron:
>No, it was "discover...<b>Judicial Fiat</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>No, it was "discovered" in the Ninth Amendment. And six other Justices agreed with Blackmun.<br /><br />You really should re-read the Ninth Amendment:<br /><br />"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."<br /><br />In other words, the Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-37576156580497297552018-11-01T18:53:36.957-07:002018-11-01T18:53:36.957-07:00@Publius:
P.S. Have you ever actually read the Ro...@Publius:<br /><br />P.S. Have you ever actually read the Roe v. Wade decision? You really should.<br /><br />https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html<br /><br />"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69320432501937588172018-11-01T18:40:21.812-07:002018-11-01T18:40:21.812-07:00@Publius:
> That right was apparently discover...@Publius:<br /><br />> That right was apparently discovered in Justice Blackmun’s ass<br /><br />No, it was "discovered" in the Ninth Amendment. And six other Justices agreed with Blackmun.<br /><br />You really should re-read the Ninth Amendment:<br /><br />"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33901901577673323872018-11-01T01:22:27.967-07:002018-11-01T01:22:27.967-07:00That was Then, This is Now
@Ron
>that the Four...<b>That was Then, This is Now</b><br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't actually mean what it plainly says, what the people who wrote it said it says, and what everyone has agreed for 150 years that it says.</i><br /><br />How can you possibly object to that?<br /><br />After all, it’s perfectly fine with you that the right to an abortion was declared by the Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.com