As to the fifth amendment, you’re right, I listed the wrong one. The fourth is what I meant. Why would anyone even expect to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” if there’s no implicit right to some privacy there?

Let’s just get you on record: There’s no Constitutionally protected right to privacy. A legislature could pass a law releasing every detail of your personal life to the public record without your consent, and there’d be no Constitutional issue here.

If you truly believe there’s no such protected right, you should be fighting tooth and nail to get one; otherwise, you scare me.

Besides, any court conservative enough to reverse Roe (five or more conservatives) would also likely strike down a federal abortion ban on Tenth Amendment grounds.

Assuming you could ever actually get such a principled court. To begin with, you’d need to replace Scalia with a more principled judge, given his propensity to set aside such things when ruling on matters about which he feels strongly. But then I see you recognized the “some weenie pulling a Scalia” option.

Since when does anyone else’s expression of anything dampen your right to express your own views.

It doesn’t at all when they express it in their homes, or churches, or even on a street corner. It does, however, when they start doing it at places I have to go (Courthouses, schools, city hall, etc.) with state sanctioning. And it does when it compels me to financially support their placement and upkeep through my tax dollars.

We have no “establishment clause” on any topic other than religion, so government is free to “speak” all it wants in political issues

Gee, don’t you think maybe they singled out religion for a reason? You argue this as if it diminishes my point when in fact it buttresses it. The framers knew the poisonous effect of intermingling church and state, and took pains to prevent this (for all the good it’s done). And they recognized that people tend to feel even more strongly about religion than they do about virtually anthing else. I’m no fan of originalism, but this is one case where the original intent pretty clear. Just read Madison (who wrote the bloody thing and ought to know) on the matter.

Does that make you feel repressed politically?

If they put up a monument to Republicanism at my court house, it would, hell yes.

And with the ninth amendment I was referring to the right to privacy (also implied by the fifth, by the way), which the conservative three would gladly defecate all over.

The made-up “constitutional” right to privacy is not mentioned in the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth, or any other part of the Constitution. Even the Griswold and Roe courts, which invented that “constitutional” right that just happened to match their own political preferences, didn’t pretend that either of those amendments did so, relying instead on “penumbras and emanations” only they could see.

That said, I will grant you that the liberals are better than the conservatives when it comes to enforcing made-up, pseudo-Constitutional rights that have no basis whatsoever in the … er … Constitution. I might even be OK with that if their creative reading of the Constitution only worked in one direction, i.e., if they only created new rights that didn’t exist, and didn’t also judicially nullify the ones that do.

And if you think that the anti-abortion movement would be satisfied with letting the states decide, you’re nuts.

Some would, although I suspect most wouldn’t. That’s beside the point, though. It’s not a question of when they’d be “satisfied,” only of what they would and would not be able to accomplish.

If Roe had gone the other way, we’d almost certainly have federal anti-abortion statutes by now, unless all 50 states had state-level prohibitions.

Impossible. I don’t think we even have anti-abortion in the House and Senate now, let alone at the time Casey was decided, which would have been the time for the big anti-abortion push if there had been one. Besides, any court conservative enough to reverse Roe (five or more conservatives) would also likely strike down a federal abortion ban on Tenth Amendment grounds. Worst case scenario: one of the five pulls a Scalia and relies on some weenie distinction a la Raich, the other four vote to overturn the statute on Tenth Amendment grounds, the liberals vote to overturn the statute by exhumin Roe, and the statute still gets overturned, setting a precedent that means God-knows-what.

Concerning the establishment clause, I’d argue that any state promotion of religion inherently dampens my right to free exercise. You’ll doubtless disagree.

Of course I do. Since when does anyone else’s expression of anything dampen your right to express your own views. We have no “establishment clause” on any topic other than religion, so government is free to “speak” all it wants in political issues, quite often expressing opinions with which you disagree. Does that make you feel repressed politically?

And with the ninth amendment I was referring to the right to privacy (also implied by the fifth, by the way), which the conservative three would gladly defecate all over.

And if you think that the anti-abortion movement would be satisfied with letting the states decide, you’re nuts. If Roe had gone the other way, we’d almost certainly have federal anti-abortion statutes by now, unless all 50 states had state-level prohibitions.

Concerning the establishment clause, I’d argue that any state promotion of religion inherently dampens my right to free exercise. You’ll doubtless disagree. (Then again, prohibiting me from forcibly converting people also infringes on my “free exercise” rights, too, so I guess it’s a wash.)

What you have are three on the “left” who push bending the text of the Constitution to an extreme (except, of course, when that doesn’t suit them), and three on the “right” who favor an extreme literalist interpretation (except, of course, when that doesn’t suit them).

Yes, yes, of course. I had almost forgotten that Justices Rehnquist and Thomas are secret potheads, that Justice Scalia gets his jollies by burning the American flag, that Justice Thomas gets a sick pleasure out of upholding laws he finds uncommonly silly, and that all three think drug companies like Pfizer are eeeeevil.

The “liberals” would prefer to ignore all or part of the second and tenth amendments, while the conservatives would gladly ignore much of the first and ninth.

Nobody’s done anything meaningful with the Ninth that I’m aware of, so we’re even on that count. As to the First, I’ll grant you that the conservatives read the Establishment Clause more narrowly than the libs do, but so what? Even if the court had unanimously ruled that no religious symbols can ever be displayed on any government-owned land, WTF would that do for my freedom, yours or anybody else’s? I’d trade the Establishment Clause for the stuff that counts (free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press) any day of the week. As to those other parts of the First Amendment, perhaps you’d care to remind me once again which judges voted to uphold McCain-Feingold and which ones voted to strike it down?

And in any case, this would have glavanized the nation’s pro-choice majority, and the backlash probably would have prevented the Republican revolution as we know it from ever really gaining a foothold.

Possibly, but I doubt it. The only reason Roe sells so well with the left and the pro-abortion center today is because the abortion lobby has done such a good job of exaggerating the practical impact of its reversal. If Roe had actually been reversed, abortion laws would have remained largely the same in all states except the few that actually wanted significant restrictions. Do you really think that millions of moderates around the country would lose sleep over the fact you could no longer get a legal abortion in Alabama?

One the one hand, four liberal Justices wipe their butts with the Constitution, which makes three of them “extremists.” At the other end of the spectrum, three conservative Justices actually try to follow the goddamned thing, but that makes them “extremists,” too.

Whatever, dude. If the three conservatives even consistently applied original intent or whatever, you might have a point. What you have are three on the “left” who push bending the text of the Constitution to an extreme (except, of course, when that doesn’t suit them), and three on the “right” who favor an extreme literalist interpretation (except, of course, when that doesn’t suit them). The “liberals” would prefer to ignore all or part of the second and tenth amendments, while the conservatives would gladly ignore much of the first and ninth. But to act as if the conservatives on the bench consistently behave in a high-minded, “uphold the letter of the Constitution’s law above all else” manner is laughable.

If Bork had been confirmed, Planned Parenthood v. Casey would have gone the other way, and abortion-obsessed liberals would have lost the main reason they care about judicial appointments anyway.

You’d still have Church/State obsessed liberals (like me). And in any case, this would have glavanized the nation’s pro-choice majority, and the backlash probably would have prevented the Republican revolution as we know it from ever really gaining a foothold. (Digression alert.) There are far too many moderate Republicans who vote that way despite the GOP’s stance on abortion; they wouldn’t necessarily have defected to the Democrats, of course, but they would have forced the GOP to soften its stance on the issue, and that likely would have cost them among their vocal minority ultra-conservative Christian demographic. The result? A splintered GOP. No, the far better strategy is to throw the “pro-life” folks a small bone every now and again without really changing anything about abortion laws. I’d wager that there’s a large percentage of the GOP powers that be that isn’t upset when anti-abortion laws are stricken down; in fact, I’ll bet many of them are counting on it.

Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides in Raich. Thomas went with his principles. Scalia twisted them to get the result he liked. (The other two dissenters in Raich were O’Connor and Rehnquist – haven’t these two been cancer patients?)

And if Bush nominates anyone who would overturn Kelo, it would be by accident. He himself has made money by the mis-use of eminent domain, back when he was on the board of a ball team.

The usual disclaimer: my only affiliation is the modest $ I’ve contributed over the years.

I don’t see how the nuke option would resort in anything other than an even more partisan judiciary. Now you may like this in the short term because you happen to agree with the partisans currently in power, but sooner or later that pendulum will swing again. So what you’d ultimately wind up with is nine extremists instead of six extremists and three moderates.

Gotta love the terminology. One the one hand, four liberal Justices wipe their butts with the Constitution, which makes three of them “extremists.” At the other end of the spectrum, three conservative Justices actually try to follow the goddamned thing, but that makes them “extremists,” too. Potato, potahto…

And frankly, had Bork been confirmed, I seriously doubt Thomas would have been, which means you wind up with a wash.

I don’t know why you assume that. If Bork had been confirmed, Planned Parenthood v. Casey would have gone the other way, and abortion-obsessed liberals would have lost the main reason they care about judicial appointments anyway. I’m not saying all liberals interested in judicial appointments are obsessed with abortion, but I am saying that a significant enough proportion of them are to tip the balance. Sometimes I think we’d be better off if we one “abortion court” to rule on Roe-related issues, and a separate Supreme Court to rule on everything else.

Mark Coffey:

Hey, no need to leave the Coalition of the Chillin’; as the founder, let me say we were only chillin’ about that one thing: the judicial deal. I’m not chillin’ about Kelo, either; it’s a disgrace…

Isn’t that a bit like chillin’ over binge drinking but protesting the hangover?

The true “libertarianish” objection to this decision ought to be to question whether real estate development is a legitimate role for government.

Another small correction, your yard is not subject to the whims of “a bureaucrat”; it’s subject to the whims of a full legislative body you can petition, challenge, scrutinize, elect, and serve on.

And frankly, had Bork been confirmed, I seriously doubt Thomas would have been, which means you wind up with a wash.

By the way, three the five liberals who voted for New London in this case were appointed by Ford (Stevens), Reagan (Kennedy), and Bush 40 (Souter).

Which is exactly the reason we can’t afford to compromise on the nuclear/constitutional option. Justice Kennedy is a prime example of what happens when Republican Presidents are politically forced to settle for second best. Without him – and with the far more qualified Robert Bork in his place – there’s little question how yesterday’s decision would have been decided.

This case makes our case for the nuke option far more sound. If we had nuked earlier, it would have not seemed as prudent. Now everyone (not just pro-lifers) should see the threat that these robed thugs pose to the Constitution.

“Chillin” does not mean oblivious.

Gentleness or good temper is the mean in feelings of anger. Short temper or irascibility is the excess, the deficiency has no name but may be called insufficient anger or apathy. The emotion of anger can be caused by many different factors, but the good-tempered man is always angry under the right circumstances, with the right people, in the right manner and degree, at the right time, and for the right length of time. Excess can be shown in too much anger, or unjustified anger, or too lengthy anger, etc. Apathy is the vice of those who do not get angry when anger is justified and who are not affected by things that should arouse anger; apathetic people often seem to have no feelings and to be unable to suffer pain for any reason.

—-Aristotle

The “judicial liberals” (to use Xrlq’s term) piss all over private property issues while enforcing meaningful church/state separation, for example. Bush’s “judicial conservatives” would do quite the opposite, maybe doing a better job enforcing property rights while turning religious liberty into something primarily limited to Judeo/Christians.

By the way, three the five liberals who voted for New London in this case were appointed by Ford (Stevens), Reagan (Kennedy), and Bush 40 (Souter). Ginsburg and Breyer were nominated by Clinton, and those two are the only sitting justices (out of nine) to be nominated by a Democrat.

As to waiting for who Bush nominates, it should be noted that the Administration was on the winning side of Raich and haven’t as yet said anything about Kelo v. New London. I suspect that they will like it as it advances the interests of big business, but perhaps thats just the cynical liberal in me.

Rogers Brown’s talk about persecuting people of faith scares me as does Owen’s “judicial activism” (in the words of Alberto Gonzales) with regards to abortion.

On further reflection, it appears to be generally a bad policy to challenge any law with which we libertarianish folks disagree, even though we are right. We keep getting shot down when take it all the way to the highest court in the land. Act locally.

right, always wait till the court is made up of judges you might be able to trust. Let’s see what Bush does and what the donkeys do to obstruct him when he makes new appointments to the supreme court.

I harbor no illusions about what might happen in the (unlikely, for now) event that I am called upon to take action when the rubber meets the road.

But I’ve got a little boy and a little girl that I’d rather see grow up without a father than to see him knuckle under, beaten by the state, begging permission to live.

I will die on my feet rather than live on my knees. Take that as bravado, false or otherwise, or in anyway that you would like.