A Neutral Corner | Political Discussion Forums

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
A Neutral Corner

An SI Board Since September 2005

Posts	SubjectMarks	Bans
2253	11	0

Emcee: Constant Reader	Type: Moderated

Introduction Compact

Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):

Reply	Message Preview	From	Recs	Posted
1478	<i>those omitted are inferred to be resigned to the discretion of the Gove	Lane3	-	11/5/2005
1477	"Title: What Would Jefferson Do? Peter Robinson: Law Professor Jeffrey Ren	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1476	"That's close to semantics. Because the law is what the courts say it i	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1475	Not substantive in protecting or even deliniating those rights, but rather subs	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1474	<i>Privacy rights as defined in Griswold, Roe, ect. are an interpretation	D. Long	-	11/5/2005
1473	<i> does something very substantive to address that limited concern.</i	Lane3	-	11/5/2005
1472	<i> If they were so concerned about those natural rights, why would they	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1471	<I> Privacy rights are the law </i> The constitution is the law.	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1470	<i>Scalia seems to think that they exist but the constitution doesn't	D. Long	-	11/5/2005
1469	I understand your your point that it doesn't make sense to give the judges t	Lane3	-	11/5/2005
1468	<i>Where does Scalia say "those cases don't exist"</i>	D. Long	-	11/5/2005
1467	Other areas where I think a statement in the constitution shouldn't properly	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1466	I don't agree. I think (and I think the relevant history supports me on t	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1465	That reminds me of an experience I had in The Rocky Knob, which is a log buildin	ManyMoose	-	11/5/2005
1464	<i>but the power is not given to the court to enforce them.</i> Sor	Lane3	-	11/5/2005
1463	To provide something of a defense for the idea of natural rights that aren't	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1462	<i> It would seem to me that a right is either subsubsumed/incorporated as	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1461	If that's the case, then answer my question to Derek. What's the point	Lane3	-	11/5/2005
1460	I had never seen that argument of Scalia's before. It would seem to me that	Lane3	-	11/5/2005
1459	I agree with Scalia here. I think he states it very well. If the idea that a l	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1458	<i> It's still a landslide for a judge to altogether repudiate as non-	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1457	The constitution lists a number of rights but nothing that directly would cove	TimF	-	11/5/2005
1456	It was such a long time ago it's hard to remember. 30 years.	Ilaine	-	11/5/2005
1455	<i>Scalia agrees with it, apparently</i> Scalia is understandably h	D. Long	-	11/5/2005
1454	Scalia agrees with it, apparently. "Or, as Justice Scalia noted, dissentin	Lane3	-	11/5/2005

Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):