Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/13/2005 9:08:44 AM EDT
Is he friend or foe?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:09:32 AM EDT
I recall this question being asked when he was first nominated for the court. I don't remember getting a definitive answer.

Tagged anyway.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:10:46 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:11:27 AM EDT
the SCOTUS will not touch the 2nd
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:13:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By oscar_corgi:
Is he friend or foe?



Your guess is as good as anyone's.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:17:07 AM EDT
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:17:51 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:20:28 AM EDT
There is no commentary anywhere on his stand on the 2nd. I don't believe the President would have nominated him for the position if he didn't follow the Constitutional interpretation. On that same note, I'd rather know where someone stands good or bad rather than not having any idea.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:23:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"



That's kind of how I feel about it. Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that he's a strict constitutionalist. He's certainly a learned man. Though I haven't heard his thoughts on the 2nd directly, I can be reasonably sure that he would interpret it in the same strict manner most of us do.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:26:35 AM EDT
Although you could read that to show that he cares more about precedent and will let stand previous bad judgements by the courts just because they were decided already.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:27:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"



That's kind of how I feel about it. Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that he's a strict constitutionalist. He's certainly a learned man. Though I haven't heard his thoughts on the 2nd directly, I can be reasonably sure that he would interpret it in the same strict manner most of us do.



He's anything but a strict constructionalist.

He recognizes Roe v Wade as settled law
He recognizes a constitutional right to privacy

Hardly a strict constructionalist

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:52:27 AM EDT
There is rather something of a debate if Roe v Wade is constitutional or otherwise. Indeed, there are constitutional arguments used by both sides, it's a matter of how they are applied. However, that's a different issue entirely.

What's wrong with a right to privacy? I thought that you were allowed to pursue liberty as privately as you wish, subject to the ammendment on due process?

As to the original question, I think he'll at least lean in favour of not making things worse than they already are for the firearms industry. That said, I'm not sure I see him overruling CA or other restrictive states given his position on devolving as much as appropriate to the state legislature and state courts.

NTM
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:08:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"



That's kind of how I feel about it. Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that he's a strict constitutionalist. He's certainly a learned man. Though I haven't heard his thoughts on the 2nd directly, I can be reasonably sure that he would interpret it in the same strict manner most of us do.



He's anything but a strict constructionalist.

He recognizes Roe v Wade as settled law
He recognizes a constitutional right to privacy

Hardly a strict constructionalist




I've never fully understood the framing of the "right to privacy". My take was always that it was a natural outgrowth of the 4th ammendment. That obviously in the fact that we can expect not to have our personal effects rumaged through at a whim we have an expectation that that will not happen. I looked at it as laymans terms of talking about the same thing.

For instance using xrays or thermal imaging to look into a house and see what the occupants are doing. To use laser mics to record conversations inside a home. To have our medical papers looked through just because are all things we can expect not to have happen without cause.

Has it been applied another way?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:21:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By phatmax:
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"




+1-He would not touch the 2nd. He respects the founding fathers wisdom.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:28:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

I've never fully understood the framing of the "right to privacy". My take was always that it was a natural outgrowth of the 4th ammendment. That obviously in the fact that we can expect not to have our personal effects rumaged through at a whim we have an expectation that that will not happen. I looked at it as laymans terms of talking about the same thing.

For instance using xrays or thermal imaging to look into a house and see what the occupants are doing. To use laser mics to record conversations inside a home. To have our medical papers looked through just because are all things we can expect not to have happen without cause.

Has it been applied another way?



The legal justification for the right to privacy is an outgrowth of a combination of Amendments. Depending on who you ask the 3rd, 4th, 5th(probably the "least" important), 9th, and 14th are all part of the legal foundation of the right to privacy. The expectation of privacy is also borne out in criminal law in the sense that there are some areas that are more private than others. Your home is chief among them, but beyond that every facet of life has been interpreted of the court of having some level of expectation of privacy. The key is that sometimes the level of expectation is very low.

shooter
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:36:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"



That's kind of how I feel about it. Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that he's a strict constitutionalist. He's certainly a learned man. Though I haven't heard his thoughts on the 2nd directly, I can be reasonably sure that he would interpret it in the same strict manner most of us do.



He's anything but a strict constructionalist.

He recognizes Roe v Wade as settled law
He recognizes a constitutional right to privacy

Hardly a strict constructionalist





Seriously can we talk about this and not get into the religous right propaganda? Roberts is reprotedly a member of the Federalists Society so odds are yes. I would guess he owns several firearms. Will he chair a court that overturns all gun control, doubt it. It will be interesting if a casepertaining to N.O. comes up in time though.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 2:34:08 PM EDT
There may also be something of a common law precedent, assuming that the US ever decided to keep any common law on the books from when they broke away from the British legal system. British common law has long held that 'A Man's home is his castle', it's quite possible that upon independence the American legal system maintained that precedent.

NTM
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 2:38:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
His comment during the hearing was something to this effect: "I am an umpire using the rules already in place, I am not out to pitch or hit"

What I got out of that is a strict constitutionalist, who will not legislate from the bench.

From that, I would say he would at least respect the 2nd and not make any changes, based on current "wisdom"



That's kind of how I feel about it. Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that he's a strict constitutionalist. He's certainly a learned man. Though I haven't heard his thoughts on the 2nd directly, I can be reasonably sure that he would interpret it in the same strict manner most of us do.



He's anything but a strict constructionalist.

He recognizes Roe v Wade as settled law
He recognizes a constitutional right to privacy

Hardly a strict constructionalist




I've never fully understood the framing of the "right to privacy". My take was always that it was a natural outgrowth of the 4th ammendment. That obviously in the fact that we can expect not to have our personal effects rumaged through at a whim we have an expectation that that will not happen. I looked at it as laymans terms of talking about the same thing.

For instance using xrays or thermal imaging to look into a house and see what the occupants are doing. To use laser mics to record conversations inside a home. To have our medical papers looked through just because are all things we can expect not to have happen without cause.

Has it been applied another way?



The senators mentioning the "right to privacy" are usually liberals speaking in the context of "its not the government's right to decide what a woman chooses to do with her body"
Top Top