You are taking this way too seriously. I can hear the foot-stomping all the way down here. vbg
I didn't say you were fatuous, I said your response was fatuous. And it was.
The right to privacy was very real to the guys who had their doors busted down by the Texas cops. The law that Texas sought to enforce was not some dusty never enforced statute. You ignored the whole gamut of things, concentrating on one point, then thinking this one minuscule point validated your entire logic thread. Well, it doesn't.
"Intelligentsia"? Pshaw, give me a break. Mq's advice is some of the best in SI--don't let slogans do the thinking for you. Ditto for "Great Unwashed."
We obviously disagree on how limits on freedom should be treated. Despite the evidence, you put your faith on the state courts and the state legislatures, and I don't. I've seen their foibles, corruption, lack of intellectual honesty, etc., up close and personal. Which is not to say that there a lots of good state court judges and lots of good things done by the state solons. On the whole, however, measured as an ecosystem, they leave a lot to be desired.
Historically, most of the infringements on personal liberty have been based on state law. And that is a fact.
Oh, there are a lot of hack-ish and stupid federal judges, but they are on the whole a cut above the state judiciary. And the have the independence granted by lifetime appointments which gives them freedom from politics, something most state judges don't enjoy, and certainly no state legislators.
Oh, and I don't know what federal judges think of me, though a few have said nice things. |
