In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 12:19:05 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So how many of those opinions have you read?

Enough to know what I'm talking about. No please prove to us how many
you're read and UNDERSTOOD.

Could you be more specific? More than 5? More than 10? More than 50?

As to the number I've understood, that depends very much on the author. Any
lawyer who tells you he understood even a majority of the opinions written
by Douglas is blowing smoke. Others write with varying degrees of clarity.
Surprisingly, Arthur Goldberg authored a few very good opinions.

But I digress. Give us an order of magnitude for the number you've read, so
we can evaluate your ability to critique Justice Thomas's ability as a
Supreme Court justice.

Under 1000, which is coincidently under the number of deaths BushCo
has caused in our military.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 12:21:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Of course, I suppose you value the barely
potential life of a damaged fetus vs. that of a healthy woman.

Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political process.

Not true. But there's no point arguing.

2. More particularly, the "discovery" of new rights hiding in the
"penumbrae" of the 13th through 15th Amendments is a judicial invention not
sanctioned by the Constitution.

Seems to be holding its own so far.

3. Since Roe v. Wade is based on one of those judicially "discovered"
rights-- a so-called right to privacy-- the case was wrongly decided.

Same as 2.

4. Under the Constitution the power to regulate abortion properly resides in
the States, and

Except that's not the law is it?

5. As a matter of policy the States should refrain entirely from exercising
that power to regulate abortion, leaving the matter to the moral judgment of
patient and doctor.

Except that it isn't left to the moral judgement of either. It's left
to the moral judgement of the States, which is flawed, and thus the
Supremos stepped in.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On 7 Oct 2004 14:37:41 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Except that it isn't left to the moral judgement of either. It's left
to the moral judgement of the States, which is flawed, and thus the
Supremos stepped in.

That sort of thinking is precisely why we need a change in the Court. If you
have a system in which nine wise men can change the law whenever they think
either Congress or the States have made a mistake, adopting whatever they
think is a good idea today, you have a government by nine wise men, Not the
system our Constitution was intended to establish.

Like in the Florida election debacle? I agree!


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 14:33:57 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

the great
unwashed in the heartland.

I rest my case.

You need a rest.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Dave" wrote
"Vito" said:

Grant's addition of "In God
We Trust" to our money was the camels nose in the tent

You're a bit late on that one. Ever hear the phrase "endowed by their
Creator?"

Sure. It was a phrase carefully chosen to avoid mentioning "God" because
ignorant people might think "God" referred only to *their* God - the
prankster who had Abraham mutilate his penis.

As president, Jefferson found himself in a situation with the Barbary
Pirates similar to the one we find ourselves in today. Altho thrashed by
our Marines (... and the shores of Tripoli ..) the leaders of these Muslim
pirates said they had a God-given duty to attack all Christian shipping.
Jefferson replied that the USA was NOT a Christian nation but rather a
secular nation cantaining Christians and other diverse faiths. That point
made the pirates made peace, but continued to ravage other nations'
commerce. That gave our merchant shipping a rather nice leg up in the Med.

Too bad we forgot that example when displaced European Jews invaded
Palistine.

"Dave" wrote

So, Vito, perhaps you could point out to me where in the Constitution I
find the words "privacy" and "abortion."

First, please understand that the Constitution does NOT give us "rights", it
describes the construct of the government and assigns powers to it. It also
forbids the government any power not so delegated. Thus the absence of
"privacy" and "abortion" mean that the government has no authority to
regulate them.

Ever heard of the 9th amendment? It addressed that very issue by stating
that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the
absence of these words clearly does NOT mean rights do not exist, as the
lunatic fringe of some churches assert. Just the opposite! See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

"Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that
inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous
to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of
the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to
the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of
rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it
would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and
it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled
out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government,
and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments
I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted
it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth
resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that
the Amendment states a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of
Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the
national government in areas not enumerated. .....
"The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the
Supreme Court until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of
the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. There a statute prohibiting use of
contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital
privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that
the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by
emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and
protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational
rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The
Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment to support the thought
that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of
Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg,
concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.


''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of
the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights,
protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those
fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional
amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so
deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be
infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first
eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to
give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this
fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not
mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or
elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment."

Please note that birth control, not abortion, was illegal in most states
until 1965, enforcing the religious idiocy that one should avoid sex except
to produce a baby. That's what the Jerry Falwell camp calls "the good old
days". People reaching puberty after 1965 cannot imagine what it was like
when even in "liberal" California a full 2/3 of brides came pregnant to the
alter and most families had unwanted children. Many refuse to believe
America was ever so stupid.

"Dave" wrote
Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally
protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political
process.

Your views are not only wrong, they are disputed by ALL of the framers of
the Constitution and are specifically refuted by the ninth amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendment09/#f5

Funny how you're willing to defend right-wing agendas not matter what!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 7 Oct 2004 19:43:07 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

If you
have a system in which nine wise men can change the law whenever they
think
either Congress or the States have made a mistake, adopting whatever they
think is a good idea today, you have a government by nine wise men, Not
the
system our Constitution was intended to establish.

Like in the Florida election debacle? I agree!

Not exactly. The words "equal protection" (on which, if I recall, the
decision was based) do at least appear in the Constitution. In a larger
sense, yes. The decision to take the case was an outgrowth of the same
kind
of judicial activism that led the Court to invent new "rights" in areas
the
founders intended to be dealt with by the political, rather than the
judicial, process. Funny how in liberal circles judicial activism is
celebrated only when the decisions go their way, how expediency trumps
principle.

Of course they are Vito! Dave is nothing more than a empty-headed right wing
wacko, who has no ability to think on his own. He spouts the right wing
agenda, rather than actually thinking.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote
Since you raise the question, Jonathan, my views are that:

1. The federal Constitution was never intended to create federally
protected
rights beyond those specifically enumerated. Protection of rights not
specifically enumerated was left to the States and to the political
process.

Your views are not only wrong, they are disputed by ALL of the framers of
the Constitution and are specifically refuted by the ninth amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...mendment09/#f5

You'll notice that Dave doesn't respond when confronted with the actual
truth.
He's just a poodle and not a very mature one.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Dave" wrote

So, Vito, perhaps you could point out to me where in the Constitution I
find the words "privacy" and "abortion."

First, please understand that the Constitution does NOT give us "rights",
it
describes the construct of the government and assigns powers to it. It
also
forbids the government any power not so delegated. Thus the absence of
"privacy" and "abortion" mean that the government has no authority to
regulate them.

Ever heard of the 9th amendment? It addressed that very issue by stating
that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the
absence of these words clearly does NOT mean rights do not exist, as the
lunatic fringe of some churches assert. Just the opposite! See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

"Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that
inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous
to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence
of
the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to
the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill
of
rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power,
it
would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration;
and
it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled
out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General
Government,
and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible
arguments
I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted
it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth
resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that
the Amendment states a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of
Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the
national government in areas not enumerated. .....
"The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the
Supreme Court until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of
the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. There a statute prohibiting use
of
contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital
privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that
the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by
emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served
and
protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational
rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well.
The
Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment to support the thought
that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of
Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg,
concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.


''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers
of
the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights,
protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those
fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight
constitutional
amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so
deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be
infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the
first
eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and
to
give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this
fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not
mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or
elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment."

Please note that birth control, not abortion, was illegal in most states
until 1965, enforcing the religious idiocy that one should avoid sex
except
to produce a baby. That's what the Jerry Falwell camp calls "the good old
days". People reaching puberty after 1965 cannot imagine what it was like
when even in "liberal" California a full 2/3 of brides came pregnant to
the
alter and most families had unwanted children. Many refuse to believe
America was ever so stupid.