The Ninth Amendment

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Dec 26, 2014.

  1. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    I am not saying they do.

    I am not saying they don't.

    I will say that if Obama said he was white....it still would not make it so.
     
  2. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    Garbage.

    What I've asked is: What is the correct mechanism for recognizing those rights (or in your world...bringing them out of the shadows) ?
     
  3. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    This was about Douglas.

    Did you have a comment or was this deflection a purposeful effort ?
     
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Exercising them.
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    When one exercises a right it is either challenged or it is not. Who gets to decide if any right exists regardless of the outcome? Rights are not self-evident to everyone. Rights are abstractions we make real by exercising them. Otherwise they exist only on our minds -- singly or collectively
     
  6. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    Douglas And Black were friends...but apparently didn't agree on this point.

    Justices hugo l. black and Potter Stewart criticized the Court for invoking the Ninth Amendment as a basis for its decision in Griswold. The Ninth Amendment, the dissenting justices said, does not explain what unenumerated rights are retained by the people or how these rights should be identified. Nor does the amendment authorize the Supreme Court, in contrast to the president or Congress, to enforce these rights. By reading the Ninth Amendment as creating a general right to privacy, Black and Stewart suggested, the unelected justices of the Supreme Court had substituted their own subjective notions of justice, liberty, and reasonableness for the wisdom and experience of the elected representatives in the Connecticut state legislature who were responsible for passing the birth control regulation.

    *************************************

    They pretty much nailed. it.

    And, of course, some will say...."but they lost".

    Which, of course, isn't the point.

    Just like we disagree, CJ's claim that "it is beyond dispute" is clearly shown to be crap with this little tidbit.

    I recall there being dissent....but I never read this before.

    Seems like they pretty much state the "other side".

    That means that while Griswold can hold today...it might fail tomorrow.
     
  7. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    So in the case of Griswold...they didn't even know what they were exercising.

    They just knew that the state was wrong.

    Douglas had to explain (well...tell them...seems he explained little) it to them.

    That makes no sense at all......
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Hmm...

    Douglas was a politician judge. Jeffrey Rosen explained it in a very succinct way in his book "THE SUPREME COURT: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America"
    ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Supreme-Court-Personalities-Rivalries/dp/B000MZHSZ8 )

    I find former Justice Stevens to be a fascinating study on the court...great article below:

    If Stevens is shrewd in the majority, he is fierce in dissent. He was especially exercised last term by a case involving death-penalty jurors, which he described to me as “a tremendous change in the law” and which prompted him to criticize his conservative colleagues with extemporaneous comments from the bench...

    ...He added with a chuckle, “I’d rather assign majorities than dissents.”

    It may seem surprising that such a passionate leader of the court’s liberal wing bristles when he is called a liberal. But the fact that Stevens sees himself as a conservatively oriented centrist makes perfect sense given what judicial liberalism has become. There was a time, years ago in the Warren Court era, when liberal justices like Stevens’s predecessor William O. Douglas saw themselves as on a mission to recreate American society along boldly egalitarian lines by discovering newly minted constitutional rights. But for better or worse, this ambitious conception of judicial liberalism has been replaced, like much of political liberalism in America, by a more modest, conciliatory and technocratic sensibility. Even the most liberal justices today have little appetite for the old approach.​

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html
     
  9. Sun Devil 92
    Offline

    Sun Devil 92 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2015
    Messages:
    16,540
    Thanks Received:
    1,515
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +8,746
    Judicial liberalism ? Just what is that ?

    Beyond that, Rosen almost sounds sensible in some of his analysis.
     
  10. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    35,063
    Thanks Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +4,833
    In my case and Cause, it is about no appeals to ignorance of our Commerce Clause regarding our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs.
     

Share This Page