Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3346)	12/23/2016 3:12:17 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 358564

I don't want to seem indifferent to any loss of rights, but I think your concerns are out of proportion. Legislatures have been denying rights, basic rights, not tweaks but disenfranchisement, to large numbers of people throughout the history of this country. We still have laws on the books that make fornication and sodomy felonies, for heaven's sake. Many places still have blue laws. Reproductive rights are under assault. Voting rights. Legislatures do that. The courts, OTOH, serve to protect, for the most part, when basic rights are cavalierly disregarded by legislatures. That's definitely a good point. I can't prove it but it seems to me there are some qualitative differences that are hard to overcome. That is to say, when the Court waives small chunks of the Bill of Rights it may have the effect of eroding, over time, very fundamental stuff. Of course, there are successes, too (Heller, Citizens United). But in the area of personal, individual rights, I worry about the consequences of year-after-year of dilution, that the basic rights will essentially collapse. You are right there are greater considerations, overall.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3346)	12/31/2016 12:53:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358564

Many places still have blue laws I'm against them for practical reasons and as a matter of principle, but I don't see them as unconstitutional. Reproductive rights are under assault. Whether or not they are natural rights (and I thing some things that fall under "reproductive rights" should be considered natural rights. Its a dubious area as "constitutional rights". In cases like Roe vs Wade the court pretty much made up rights not in the bill of rights or elsewhere in the constitution. Voting rights. This is a more solid example. I don't think it applies as well to modern controversies like whether a picture ID should be required, but from the end of reconstruction until well in to the 20th century there were many more clear cases of infringement. And of course your point is not the examples. Even without any examples, I'd agree that its more often the courts protecting or not protecting rights then it is the courts infringing on them