"Rollback" Blackburn is at it again!  She (and her GOP cohorts) are coming for liberal rights and freedoms. The strategy: Conservatives did not give you those "liberties" and other gains liberals-and so we 'fixing to' claw-back them all one by one (or in "bunches") rapido!

Unlike "Rollback" Blackburn who just laid her intentions out there (on the deck) 'raw,' Grassley in his opening statement at least tied the conservative "theme" of law to the legislative body's control over a 'weak' federal system as the norm. Check him out . More on Grassley as follow-up.

(They're coming for your 'work' on behalf of expanding liberties, liberals!  They want 'em back!)

Deny access to birth control???? What the hell is she smoking????

Yes, babies are like 'arrows in your quiver.'  You can 'fire' them only if you birth the little fellas first.  Of course, we are going to need more conservatives to follow all the legal "rollbacks" coming down the pipe. /s

Can you imagine a world where human sex only happens when you want a baby?  Nothing could be more unnatural.  This notion is stupid to a bizarre level.

The world would be in utter chaos

Especially in a society that expects its citizens to (conservatively) 'follow the scripting' from sunup to sundown. "Shrunken" liberties and freedoms reduction is what is in store for liberals in a conservative controlled nation. Gains will be wiped away as conservatives will not allow courts to 'act' or hear the pleads of the people. While, this time around, the conservatives will help minorities groups (and women) in the so-called, "people's house" in Washington, D.C.  Calls for help and relieve will fall on deaf ears.

Conservatives do not want to take care of anybody's (else) children! Yet, they are perfectly contend to see that liberals are 'saddled' with more of them—just because. And how will they do it: Legislate additional trivial "stipend" sums into the tax code for people who conform to conservative ideology plans for their lives.

Yes, that sounds reasonable when women choose to have a pregnancy that ends in child-birth. Moreover, I wrote more than that in my comment—yes, I did.

Now then, conservative Texans have OBFUSCATED a woman's right to choose abortion (even in the case of rape). Why should a female of child-bearing ages 'harbor' in their womb a rapists (arrogant) child born of forcible sex?

That is a dodge. Can you answer the question (assuming you know Texas law)?

Why should a female of child-bearing age 'harbor' in-womb a rapist's (arrogant) child of forcible sex readied for birth?

Texas as a state has demonstrated its intent to not consent to abortion in case of rape.

PASS. Moving on. No further consideration will come. BYE.

The world would be in utter chaos

I'm not sure about "chaos".... Let's not get carried away. 

I mean... the world was not in "chaos" in 1900 or 1800 or most other times before birth control was invented.

That said, the idea that this thing we now have which is a clear improvement for most American lives should not be legal is a galactic level of batshittery.  We're talking 5 siamese on the crazy cat lady scale.

We're talking 5 siamese on the crazy cat lady scale.

that's funny especially the Siamese reference

Agreed. Conservatives talk about liberals and freedoms jingoistically. Importantly, the Texas law likely deliberately "provokes" federal law in order to draw a case up to the level of SCOTUS or to operate in a "fertile suspension" of law setting while courts are stunted by the gall and "confusion" the state has thrown. Subsequently, Texas has become an "activist court" unto itself and self-serving as its girls and women and abortion services are out of business (and "luck") when operating in the state.

Texan1211 does not want to discuss this obfuscation (confusion- a Justice calls it), and why potentially speaking girls and women of rape in Texas 'today' are having children they do not want or can not afford.

Radical anti-abortionist also opposes birth control...

Did you expect intellectual honesty from Blackburn?

Blackburn whose bra size exceeds her IQ.

"Americans want a constitutionalist, not a judicial activist."

Americans overwhelmingly voted for Joe Biden and as President he gets to choose nominees for SCOTUS seats that will become vacant. In 2016 Republicans claimed it was the voters right to pick that SCOTUS nominee through the American peoples choice of President. So really, Ms Blackburn doesn't get to decide what "Americans" want since clearly her party lost by over 7 million votes.

"Though marital privacy, or broader privacy rights, are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the majority in Griswold found that fundamental rights to privacy are implied within at least five amendments."

If the 4th amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, the first protects our freedom of speech, the press and religion, the second protects our right to bear arms and the fifth being protection against self incrimination, all have to do with individual privacy. How do you know if a husband or wife are using contraceptives? Should we only protect individual privacy if its spelled out in the constitution? Should the constitution allow some religious zealots to search and/or seize contraceptives from other citizens simply because the constitution doesn't mention contraceptives? Does the constitution allow those religious zealots whether in government or not to force women they suspect of being pregnant to undergo an invasive ultrasound to confirm they are pregnant so they can force the woman to carry and give birth to a child just because the constitution doesn't specify a woman's right to privacy over their bodies?

Seeing that the constitution over several amendments clearly implies a citizens right to privacy is not "judicial activism", its intelligent reasoning and understanding the principles within the constitution which is a living document, not commandments carved into stone supposedly by God on high and thus never to be changed or altered. The founders wanted a constitution that could adapt to the changing landscape and meet the needs of a collective of States people that we now accept as including every citizen, not just the white Christian males as it once did.

Excellence in sharing. Thank you!

I don’t know how you can grow up in this country, say you care about freedom and individual liberty, and yet still believe that people don’t have a right to privacy. “Irrational” and “Illogical” are not strong enough words. It’s insane.

Griswold, by the way, was decided 7-2. It’s not like it was a radical, fringe, holding.

And they didn’t just interpret one clause or amendment. They found the right to privacy in four amendments - 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th. I believe the concurrences also found it in the 14th. So this didn’t come out of left field. They didn’t just pull it out of their asses. It’s ALL OVER the Constitution and its amendments. It’s like finding Love in the Bible. It’s not in just one place. It’s everywhere.

Undermine constitutional privacy and you can effectively 'jenga' same-sex marriage. As homosexuals would have no right to relationships that should be respected!

This is what "some conservatism" is. It is the unrelenting "gnaw" that bides its time, but never ceases from trying to stifle, diminish, and suppress the practical happiness (prospering) of those who do not wish to be a part of its worldview (but who are okay will "live and let live alike."

If it's been variously "discovered" in 5 different places after almost 200 years of no one knowing it was there, it doesn't exist. 

TO claim its both everywhere and nowhere is great for metaphysics, but not when determining a constitution.

A wasteful statement unless its connected to meaning. Care to try?

If it's been variously "discovered" in 5 different places after almost 200 years of no one knowing it was there, it doesn't exist. 

That’s not how our system works. If nothing else, the 9th Amendment allows for it. That is, if the Constitution doesn’t give the government the right to violate our privacy, then we have a right to it. The 9th Amendment says that the very fact that a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution is not grounds for claiming it doesn’t exist. And, in fact, such rights are reserved to the people.

More than that, though, it just makes sense.

Under the 1st Amendment, you have a right to worship how you like or associate with whomever you want, and it’s not the government’s business. Those are examples of privacy.

Under the 3rd Amendment the military cannot enter your home. Your home is private.

Under the 4th Amendment, you have a right to be secure from government search of your person or property. Those things are private.

Throughout the drafting of the Bill of Rights, the framers were concerned with protecting the privacy of the people. That should be plainly obvious. And since they couldn’t think of every possible violation of privacy, they gave us the 9th Amendment.

If nothing else, the ninth amendment allows for it.

If that were true, why has only single justice (Goldberg in this case) in 200 some years claimed it (in a concurring opinion)? Your theory has been ignored by every other justice seeking to create new rights.

The reason Is that none of these newly found rights existed when the 9th amendment was ratified.  So yes, it protects, unenumerated rights, but it protect the unenumerated rights that were understood to exist at the time of ratification. There's zero evidence anyone believed in a general right to privacy in 1790.

it's no more of a blank canvas to project novel interpretations of rights than any other amendment.. 

The drafters of the amendments were not simpletons. If they wanted to create a privacy amendment, they were capable of putting those words to paper. And surely, over the next 150 years, someone would have, in fact, put pen to paper and validated your claim that the ninth amendment was designed to create a right of privacy.

Not one  founder, nor some of the greatest legal minds in American history made that argument. While you personally, may feel the ninth amendment contains a  right to  privacy, that's not supported by history or the holding of any Supreme Court case 

You’re approaching this from a perspective of oppression. I am approaching it from a perspective that values freedom. Where in the Constitution is the government’s right to invade my privacy enumerated?

There's zero evidence anyone believed in a general right to privacy in 1790.

1. That ludicrous. The understanding was "common-place" as your person is your own and, since time immortal in this country (and the GENERAL NEED of a constitution) it has been established that - anyone touching or acting against your body is committing an immoral and wrong act.

2. Even were (1) above not common-place in the 18th century, it belies common-sense to discover a need for privacy (against immoral and wrongs against one's body) to say that law-makers, by definition, must hold a constitutional convention to make policy. Something they do 'today' in state houses and Washington D.C. when they are not sitting on their hands. For this reason alone, your point is moot.

[Deleted]

Why the fuck would anyone want to deny access to birth control to ANYONE?

How is that acceptable to ANYONE?

Beats me.  But I don't conflate  my preferences for what is and isn't Constitutional. 

In theory we can hold constitutional conventions annually or as needed; In practice, that is what those people in congress are there to do-legislate general purpose laws and policies for the citizenry. And not require everything to be "contested" indefinitely and only through the arduous convention process.  What say you?

It comes down to whether you believe in a written constuition or not. Within the broad constraints set forth, the Constitution allows the people an incredible amount of latitude to set the rules they want to be governed by. So its an incredibly dynamic form of government even before you consider the ability to amend it.  

But once you decide the terms of the contract are essentially meaningless and can be interpreted willy nilly by 5 unelected lawyers using open ended appeals to undefinable metaphysical terms to justify imposing their moral beliefs (see Roberts take down of Kennedy on this score) than the document itself has no meaning. It renders the amendment process irrelevant.  The people no longer have a say, we are now government by a cabal of about the least diverse group of people imaginable,  five lawyers from a handful of schools. 

But once you decide the terms of the contract are essentially meaningless and can be interpreted willy nilly by 5 unelected lawyers using open ended appeals to undefinable metaphysical terms to justify imposing their moral beliefs (see Roberts take down of Kennedy on this score) than the document itself has no meaning. It renders the amendment process irrelevant.  The people no longer have a say, we are now government by a cabal of about the least diverse group of people imaginable,  five lawyers from a handful of schools.

With all due respect, our "unelected officials" are professional vetted by congress to lifetime positions! Diminishing (stigmatizing) their branch of government by using disparaging words is not helpful to the foundation of a three-branch government mean (in spirit and literally) to help each other maintain the form and fashion of government structure. Grant it, the House of Representative was supposed to be the "people's voice" (though these days its "muted" and quieted itself), but when the legislature won't execute, it behooves the people to turn to the courts!

"Bad-mouthing" courts for helping the citizen be heard is not a workable, productive, practice. I wonder why the courts defer to people who do it. Judges/courts should stand up for themselves and demand the proper respect!

Lol... 

Griswold doesn't restrict states from denying birth control.  That's a fact.  

Can you rewrite this comment in plainer English, please? It is 'cloudy, in my opinion.

Griswold only prohibits a state from prosecuting someone for using birth control.  A state can still prohibit the sale or manufacture of birth control.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was a Supreme Court case that famously inferred that a right to privacy existed within the Constitution, which does not explicitly exist in the document. The case was over a Connecticut law that banned the use of any contraception for married couples which received multiple legal challenges prior to this case.

The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision overruled the law as an invasion of the right to privacy , specifically marital right to privacy. The case played a major role in later Supreme Court cases to expand the right of privacy such as to other uses of contraception, abortion, and LGBTQ rights. 

The majority opinion written by Justice William Douglas reasoned that many inexplicit rights exist within the Constitution that flow from the “emanations” of other explicitly granted protections. By broadly interpreting the first , third , fourth , and fifth amendments, the majority found contraception to be an inexplicit protected right of privacy similarly to the protected right for parents to decide how to raise their children as noted in Meyer v. Nebraska . The majority limited this discussion to the right of privacy within a marriage, arguing that privacy within parts of marriage is an understood right existing long before the Constitution.

A few notable concurrences and dissents existed in the case. Justice Arthur Goldberg argued the ninth amendment gave the court the justification in protecting unenumerated rights like certain rights to privacy . As he does in other opinions, Justice Marshall Harlan II contended that the right to privacy existed as part of substantive due process within the fourteenth amendment . Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart both dissented on the grounds that, while personally they found the law to be senseless, they could not find that the Constitution in any way directly created a right to privacy in these circumstances. 

[Last updated in January of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

law.cornell

Note the "privacy" theme coursing through the 7-2 court on this 1965 decision!

The majority opinion written by Justice William Douglas reasoned that many inexplicit rights exist within the Constitution that flow from the “emanations” of other explicitly granted protections.

Special note pulled from the Griswold decison:

The majority opinion written by Justice William Douglas reasoned that many inexplicit rights exist within the Constitution that flow from the “emanations” of other explicitly granted protections.

Now, we can see why "Rollback" Blackburn was to 'gut' this decision and its "many rights exist" provision from the ranks of established law.

Griswold was a correct decision.  Under our Constitution, government power is limited for purposes established in the Preamble. Included was “to secure the Blessings of Liberty” which recognizes the natural rights-based philosophy that the Constitution was designed to implement. The Ninth Amendment also affirms  the existence of unenumerated natural rights and prohibits government from denying those rights.  The Fourteenth Amendment expressly empowered the federal government to prevent states from exercising arbitrary power that undercut those rights.  Whether sexual liberty or economic liberty, they should be protected from arbitrary state infringement.

If they deny access to birth control women WILL stop having sex with their husbands, girlfriends are going to give boyfriends a handshake at the end of the night.

We'll take care of our children responsibly. We just want the right to control how many children we have. There's only one sure fire way to prevent pregnancy and that's abstinence.

I swear, these dumbasses would stop this shit if women went Lysistrata on their asses.  And yeah, Marsha is a woman, but her male handlers will tell her to hush up and get back in the kitchen when they ain't gettin' no nooky.

Trying to force America to accept "originalist" interpretations of the constitution is just plain silly. It would be like telling everyone they have to be a conservative. "Originalism" as regards the constitution is conservative by nature, if we accept originalism as the only way to interpret the constitution we are in effect saying that most if not all supreme court decisions will be conservative. 

The fact is that every Supreme Court decision is an interpretation of the constitution, even the decisions based on "original text". Originalists interpret the original text as they see fit. There are almost no cases before the Supreme Court that can be judged simply and literally by referring to the original text. 

Now originalists will say "we have to discern the original INTENTION of the framers", but doing so is an interpretation. The constitution doesnt mention birth control or abortion, or many other things. 

So what we have is an argument between differing interpretations. The Living Constitution concept is no less defensible than the originalist concept. 

Originalism is inconsistent with principles that are at the core of American constitutional law, and, for the most part, originalists do not claim otherwise. Justice Antonin Scalia, who is probably the most prominent defender of originalism today, likes to say that he is a “fainthearted originalist,” because he is willing to abandon originalism when it leads to implausible results like the ones I described. “I’m an originalist— I’m not a nut,” he says. That way of putting it is disarming, but it seems fair to respond: if following a theory consistently would make you a nut, isn’t that a problem with the theory? Less polemically, the problem with fainthearted, or qualified, or sometime originalism is that it gives away most of the qualities that purported to make originalism appealing in the first place. Originalism is supposed to be a bulwark against transient popular sentiment and judges who would impose their own values. But if you’re going to say that originalism is only sometimes the right approach, then you have to answer at least two other questions. What principle determines when it is right to abandon originalism? And, once you decide not to be an originalist in a certain category of cases, what do you do instead?

Excerpted from the book , THE LIVING CONSTITUTION, BY David A. Strauss

While it's strange to hold up one person as the ultimate arbiter of any theory,

Scalia repudiated that remark. Odd your source didn't report that. 

In the book The Living Constitution , the author, constitutional scholar David Strauss , brings up numerous scenarios where an originalist interpretation of the constitution would not align with widely accepted notions such as "one person , one vote", de-segregation of schools, consumer protections, and others. 

It is not practical in the 20th and 21st century to base high court decisions on "original intent" , and it certainly is not practical to claim that this is the only way the constitution should be interpreted. 

de-segregation of schools,

An originalist view of the 14th Amendment sees that it clearly forbids state laws that give an abridged set of state constitutional righto one class of citizens as compared to another class of citizens.  In 1868, the vast majority of states recognized the right to a public school education.  Only four states did not seem to recognize the right to a public school education, and none had provisions requiring segregated schools. 

Professor Strauss notes that it is clear that the 14th amendment did not have an original intention of ending or even opposing segregation,  so what you may be saying is that a so called "originalist" interpretation is not that but rather a latter day rationale. 

The 14th Amendment not only granted citizenship to former slaves but it forbid states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In Brown, SCOTUS held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In your own words, how was that not in keeping with the intent of the 14th Amendment?

I wasnt aware that Brown was decided on originalist principles. I havent heard that before. 

Originalist judging is about what the thinking was at the time right? The time the particular constitutional provision in question was enacted. The 14th amendment was not enacted with de-segregation in mind, at all. 

A Supreme Court that goes back 100 or 150 years later, and discovers an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution ,is more a rationale than an obvious course for high court decisions. 

The 14th amendment was not enacted with de-segregation in mind, at all. 

What was in mind when the 14th was enacted?

The 14th amendment was not enacted with de-segregation in mind, at all. 

What was in mind when the 14th was enacted?

The vast majority of American schools were segregated when the 14th amendment passed and for a long time afterward. 

That is a fact but you didn’t answer the question.

That is a fact but you didn’t answer the question.

The vast majority in NYC are still segregated, what is your point?

The point is that Brown was not decided based on adherence to the original intent of the 14th amendment. If it had to be, how long would we have waited. The truth, whether anyone likes it or not, is that many pressing issues of the modern world cannot be appropriately decided based solely on the original intent of people who lived 250 years ago. The "historical record" of original intent of the framers can be used as a well, framework that is, when needed, adapted to the modern world. 

the 20th and 21st century to base high court decisions on "original intent"

You've lost that battle. Scalia won. Even Judge Jackson talked like an originalist in her confirmation hearing yesterday. She's almost certainly lying, but it's telling that even a liberal has use that framework to avoid seeming like an extremist.

Supreme Court justices have a duty to follow the framework of the constitution, and no one really objects to that. The objection comes when "originalism" is used as the justification for retrograde SC decisions. The fact is that many circumstances and conditions in the 21st century cannot be appropriately judged using the sparse 18th century language and "intent" of the "original text". So interpretations are made, and as you well know , originalism is itself an interpretation. 

Trying to force America to accept "originalist" interpretations of the constitution is just plain silly. It would be like telling everyone they have to be a conservative. "Originalism" as regards the constitution is conservative by nature, if we accept originalism as the only way to interpret the constitution we are in effect saying that most if not all supreme court decisions will be conservative. 

Now you are getting to the crux of the 'problem.' Some conservatives are in complete 'battle mode" with stripping liberals of their rights and privileges, instead demanding liberals forsake their principles and values of freedom and liberty and supplant their own!

But once you decide the terms of the contract are essentially meaningless and can be interpreted willy nilly by 5 unelected lawyers using open ended appeals to undefinable metaphysical terms to justify imposing their moral beliefs (see Roberts take down of Kennedy on this score) than the document itself has no meaning. It renders the amendment process irrelevant.  The people no longer have a say, we are now government by a cabal of about the least diverse group of people imaginable,  five lawyers from a handful of schools.

With all due respect, get elected officials off their hands and back in the business of service to all the good people in this country—combined. Until then, people will turn (for their survival and prosperity) to whomsoever "spells' r-e-l-i-e-f and offers better quality of life !

Is this what she was going on about. I walked into the living room to talk with my wife and she was on. All I heard was "Meow, meow meow meow! Meow! Meow!"

Day 1 Opening Statement from Senator Marsha Blackburn. Today, was Day 2 of the confirmation hearing.

A very nice sentiment, I'm sure. But I'd be willing to bet a 100 dollars her definition of freedom is not mine.

But she doesn't seem to be the one playing Karen. That role is left to Hawley and Graham.

access to contraception "constitutionally unsound."

What part of the constitution speaks to this?

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. . . : Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson says abortion is not textually written out in the constitution and "Rollback" Blackburn is gleeful!