SCOTUS judges 'doxxed' after overturning Roe v Wade The US Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade last month may have been doxxed – had their personal information including physical and IP addresses, and credit card info revealed – according to threat intel firm Cybersixgill. As expected, the fallout from the controversial ruling, which reversed the court's 1973 …
Long ago, in the dark mists of time, I would’ve enjoyed watching the cognitive dissonance at play as they etched our custom protections for themselves and nobody else using some worrisome legal “logic”…
Not so much anymore, as I can only shudder at what overblown, poorly thought out, and poorly implemented systems they’ll put in place to ensure their own safety and comfort (that we, the peons won’t benefit from).
I’m sure it’ll all be fine, above board, and respect the rights of all citizens, at the very least!
I detect sarcasm dripping into puddles on the floor. Have a cold one for that.
And yes, the Supremes (the court not the women singers) are demanding that they be protected. I'm wondering when they'll start building moats around their homes with a large assortment of armed guards, maybe some trained bears..
You know, the constitution also does not mention electricity, internet, female equality (yes they were given the vote, but nowehere does it state they are equal to men), LTGB rights, NASA, DHS, airports, etc
So, how about SCOTUS rules that all those explicitly not mentioned in the constitution are not federal issues and they are to be decided by the states?
That will be fun times. Travel from one state to another and suddenly things turn legal or illegal.
PS : Not am American, not visited USA.
Way back in the development of the English language a male was a werman (w pronounced as f or v) and a female was a woman, man was singular person and men, the plural.
So it could easily be argued that the all men are created equal part of that countrys very ragged and nearly destroyed constitution already includes all people. As their highest court is happy to dig back beyond when their country was even a thing it should pose no issues to go back another 5 or 600 years regarding the language.
So, how about SCOTUS rules that all those explicitly not mentioned in the constitution are not federal issues and they are to be decided by the states?
That is essentially what Thomas advocated in his concurring opinion. Except for overturning Loving v. Virginia, since that protects his own marriage. One rule for him, another for everyone else.
Thomas has, of course, also advocated things like corporal punishment in schools.
"Except for overturning Loving v. Virginia, since that protects his own marriage."
It surprises me that the US states each make their own laws about the age of marriage. Several have no lower age threshold. In practice that means children, mainly girls, are still being legally married at the age of 11 to much older partners. Basically it is a parental and judge's option - sometimes when a girl has been raped by the putative husband but also "tradition".
It is a legal fact that many USA states have allowed such marriages even in recent years.
This article from the Independent a few years ago gives some of the facts and figures. Not much has changed since then.
A quote:
"The youngest wedded were three 10-year-old girls in Tennessee who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. The youngest groom was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.
Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licences in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina, while 11 other states allowed 13-year-olds to wed.
More than 1,000 children aged 14 or under were granted marriage licences.
"
"the constitution provides no specifically enumerated right to privacy..."
You're barking up the wrong tree there. This is far more than an invasion of privacy. Publishing private home addresses and vehicle details of state officials or public persons (and spouses thereof) is inviting and inciting physical violence against these people. There is really no other reason for this data being published.
It is also an (attempted or actual) intimidation of a state official, which is a direct attack on the independent judiciary as one of the pillars of modern liberal democracy.
Now don't get me wrong, I truly believe the Roe v Wade overturning was wrong both morally and judicially, and the newly appointed conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and many others on state and local courts) have been appointed based on politics not merit. There's an argument for a more independent judiciary, and general democratic reform which is long overdue.
But if what you are saying, at the root, is "I don't agree with this state official's decision therefore it's OK to target them", you're opening the door for anyone else to do that, and that way lies chaos and a continued unraveling of democratic norms. Consider what your reaction would have been if the Supreme Court didn't overturn Roe, and it was right-wing lunatics posting the liberal judges' home adresses??
Of course, another problem is that the rest of the world looks at America and sees a justice system that increasingly looks poorer than many third world countries.
You have political appointees deciding who gets prosecuted, politically appointed judges applying creative interpretation to what laws actually say, and legalised blackmail in "plea bargaining".
You guys ought to either go all the full way and have politically appointed Juries as well, or depoliticise the entire justice system like other countries have done.
"How about - to highlight to the judiciary that there exists a terrifying amount of information about everyone which should be protected by law."
Yes indeed. There should be a huge risk to storing PII. If C-level execs might be subject to jail time and companies subject to business ending fines, perhaps more companies would put more of an effort in securing information they're holding or decide to not keep it at all. If judges and lawmakers have their noses rubbed in the problem, they might do something. Whether that "something" is useful or not remains to be seen.
One would think that members of the highest court in the country would have much better security but, sigh, I guess not.
Yours is a strawman arguement.
The far right has already proven their violence and disregard for the Constitution and laws and rights.
When there is no one else left to appeal to, the citizens have the right take back their rights any way they see fit. That is the very foundation of the U.S.
If you or anyone else cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, a simple ethics class and common law class will fix that.
"It is also an (attempted or actual) intimidation of a state official, which is a direct attack on the independent judiciary as one of the pillars of modern liberal democracy."
While in the main correct, it also highlights to the people that matter that this data was NOT properly secured and easily accessible so that it could be published. The reason it was so easily accessible is because there are no strong punishments for those people holding the data insecurely in the first place and this sort of things happens to millions of people on a daily basis and maybe it's time to look into this.
>they'd not care.
They would go on whatever fundamentalist/born again channel that will accept their $donation, where they can make a big show of admitting to their "sin" and being led by the devil etc. and all the other religo-fanatics will accept their repentance.
Naturally, after this they will return to delivering the devils agenda by making other peoples lives miserable, although they will see it as doing "gods work"...
You misunderstand the ruling - it does not ban abortion. They have said that the state legislatures are the appropriate place for laws regarding abortion to be passed, rather than as a result of a court forcing ALL states to go one way or another.
If you do not like the laws in any one state you have 3 options;
1. campaign against the legislators on the "other" side and support "your" side and get the laws changed.
2. move to a state with more congenial laws
3. obey the law as it stands
The problem with (2) is that sooner or later you are likely to run out of states to move to.
And sadly, the problem with (1) is that the binary nature of the issue and a two-party system means that negotiated solutions are pretty much ruled out. It's all a question of who shouts loudest.
No, the problem with (2) is that the post-Roe states are also planning to introduce legislation to prosecute women who travel across state lines to procure an abortion. Some, I think, have already done it.
"The problem with (2) is that sooner or later you are likely to run out of states to move to."
The likelihood of California, New York etc legislating against abortion as close to 0 as makes no difference. Sadly, the likelihood of Texas etc legislating for abortion is also as close to 0 as makes no difference.
IANAL but as far as I could work out, the SCOTUS ruling does not rule out a future federal law against abortion nationwide, it was just saying that nationwide constitutional provisions of privacy don't apply to abortion (and since there is no current federal abortion legislation as far as I can tell, the matter falls de facto to the states)
"as far as I could work out, the SCOTUS ruling does not rule out a future federal law against abortion nationwide"
There are plenty of national laws already that are ignored by the populace. All it means is the risk for the parties involved is increased so the price goes up. It can also mean that organizations operating in the shadows step in to broker or provide "protection".
The taxes on cigarettes can be very expensive so many people will buy in quantity someplace outside the high tax area and resell them sans the proper stamp for a nice profit. A high-risk, high-reward underground market is created.
This post has been deleted by its author
There's one small issue with this comment.....
The USA might legally be "one country", internationally speaking; but in practise it's turning into a loosely federated collection of independent nations, who all happen to (approximately) speak the same language.
In a way it's quite similar to the European Union, a loosely connected collection of independent nations who have chosen to work together and install a common federated government the help manage the collective. (which, obviously, is just one way of describing it).
Look at it that way, and somethings start making a lot more sense. (but not everything obviously... life is never that simple, especially when lawyers and politicians are involved).
Not really like the EU at all. The EU members have specific areas where the nation is sovereign. Brussels has relatively little power compared to Washington. US house and senate are directly elected. In EU, the EU Commission and Council are both appointed directly by national governments, only the EU parliament (1/3 of the EU decision-making) is directly elected.
Washington has huge control notably over foreign affairs, military spending etc which Brussels doesn't have. It also has the FBI as a federal police force, which the EU does not have (and, by the way, really needs to stop local governments protecting their own corrupt practices through friendly local police forces). And one other big difference, US federal law directly applies in all states. When EU law is enacted it has to be 'transposed' by member states, who may tweak locally the exact details.
Last and very simply, ask a Californian, Texan etc where they're from and they'll tell you "American". Ask any EU citizen and see if you find someone who answers "European". Politically, linguistically, and culturally, the EU is far more heterogeneous and loosely bound than the US.
Then it needs to stop pretending to be 'One nation, under cthulhu' or whatever. This is a step too far and WILL end up destroying the US..... Martin-73
Regarding any of those “One nation, under cthulhu' or whatever.” type notions one may have, Martin-73, here is some news, which may or may not be news to you, which creates something altogether quite different ......... What Is The "Council For Inclusive Capitalism”?
And quite whether a clear and present danger able to threaten and destroy anything or everything is surely fully dependent upon how much one would know of the power and energy of such matters and means as they have remote virtually anonymous command and practically autonomous control over.
I don't view Roe v. Wade as ONLY about liberal vs. conservative. It was also about legal politics re: stop at the plainest meaning of the law, or 'interpret' it to what you think it should mean. Our laws say that they should look at the text, and if there are two or more meanings that could be read, use the best historical sources available to shed light on what was intended.
They did that, and nearly all of them agreed that people in 1789 knew what abortion was, had plenty of laws about it, and weren't talking about that when they were trying to protect 'privacy.' Striking down Roe, many today would argue results in great injustice. But in 1789 they also knew about slavery, and knew how to write an ammendment making it illegal, but they didn't think it was wrong. Then 1865 came along, and now more than 2/3s of Americans held the opposite view, and passed the 13th ammendment (the Emancipation Proclamation.)
Is there a 2/3 majority now that supports the right to an abortion? Well, if not, then it is _not_ a right, and they should take a civics lesson and read the dictionary on what makes a 'right.' It's not a 'right' because you think it is good or just or it should be so.
If there IS such a majority, then that same group should be given remedial civics for a different reason, i.e. they should have seen that this could happen i.e. the same body of unelected judges that overstepped and essentially re-wrote the constitution could be filled later by a different group that could take it away. They should have used the last 50 years to pass the '30th ammendment' to make it _actually_ a right to get an abortion.
Many people did their civics lessons. That's why 13 states passed laws preparing for this, some for, some against, but they did their civic duty to their citizens.
If you are for the right to abortion, then you absolutely should be pressing for your congresscritters to pass laws that codify what was mistakenly hung on this misguided precident. Things like interracial marriage (Loving) the right to keep the government's nose out of your boudoir (Lawrence v. Texas) and same sex marriage (obergefell v. hodges)
Some of those I'd join you on, some I wouldn't, but I'd absolutely respect your right to vote for them. What I wouldn't respect is doing nothing - Roe was the lynchpin holding those together, and if you think they're rights, you should have voted them in 50 years ago knowing this day would come. Better late than never though!
"They did that, and nearly all of them agreed that people in 1789 knew what abortion was, had plenty of laws about it, [...]"
The Converstaion has an interesting article which includes this quote "Benjamin Franklin inserted an abortion recipe in a popular textbook he republished in Philadelphia in 1748. "
Here is a long read from the Guardian about a study of the commonly accepted use of abortion in the USA before the 19th century laws.
Came here to say exactly that. I agree with the sentiment of those horrified by the implications, but the ruling was questionable when it was made, and it's been a *long* time since it was made, during which time successive Democrat administrations (the party most likely to put through legislation making it a legal right) have absolutely nothing to cement that decision.
This situation was not only inevitable, it was actually long overdue and the 'strict' interpretation doctrine has implications for far more than this particular situation. I happen to agree that they should indeed be making narrow interpretations of the text and ruling accordingly, even though I also agree it is no business of the state's who has an abortion (in general).
"This ruling won't stop abortions. What it will stop is safe abortions in clean, hygienic environments."
It will also mean that anybody that is silly enough to abide by the laws in some states and try to get "permission" will be long past a date where the procedure is safe to perform. Inserting the government into anything just adds delay and horribly arbitrary decisions.
state and/or congress. More explicitly: it's for the demos through their elected politicians to implement what the demos wants, not for the courts to impose.
The solution to *any* "How dare the court(s) say X" is to legislate. Get off their damn arses and do what their job is.
To be fair, the legal reasoning that put Roe vs Wade in place in the first instance was not the most solid to begin with. Democrat politicians have had years in which they could have made abortion legal under certain conditions at a federal level, but they just kept kicking the can down the road and relied on a flimsy paravent.
The tenth amendment, rarely discussed, states (paraphrasing here) that any rights not granted to the federal government under the constitution belong to the several states or (here's the critical part) the people.
The problem with the SCOTUS ruling is that it unjustifiably assumes and asserts that the right to medical and bodily self-determination belongs to the state when, in fact, it clearly belongs to the people as a basic, self-evident human right.
The better question is how they'd handle it if their mistress wound up in an inconvenient condition.
It really depends on the level of fanaticism for the daughter/grandkid issue - some would say "God's Will", some will ship her across state/national borders or find a friendly doctor.
But the mistresses? Those always find a friendly doctor - even if they don't want to.
So now if someone does something that the leftists no longer agree with they are then DOXxed with the future intention that someone will come along and possibly harm or kill the offending party..
Is this what is now known as democracy in the US?
Perhaps we should list up the killings and the bombing committed by the 'pro-life' mob before drawing too much judgement on a bunch of cyber crooks.
After all, the phone call to the bank canceling your credit card and asking for a new one is so much easier than the 911 call saying your doctor husband has just been shot in the head in front of you....
In any case..... wtf business of the state is it what a person does with his/her body?
Except that it's not just one person's body being affected, not to mention that the law has already spoken on whether a fetus is a person; killing a pregnant woman earns you TWO murder charges in any state.
Rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the child, legitimate reasons to abort. Oops, the condom broke and it's not a safe day, perhaps she should have said no that day. Deal with it. Don't want the child, plenty of other people will, and they'll pay the costs.
"if there were so many people willing to take your unwanted baby, the orphanages would be empty."
There are very few people that want a child with health issues or is from a drug addicted mom and will be likely to have mental and behavioral issues even if they might be physically ok. There is also a bigger demand for adoption of certain races with caucasian babies being much preferred.
Having government demand that women take pregnancies to term even when it's known early that the child has severe issues is cruel and unusual. It used to be that many of these children wouldn't survive, but medical prowess has made sure that many do survive and there is less of a chance that other steps would go unnoticed.
>the law has already spoken on whether a fetus is a person
That be the law as written by fundamentalist-leaning republican white men, who naturally want to punish people who do things they don't approve of?
>Don't want the child, plenty of other people will, and they'll pay the costs.
Don't see any pro-lifers suggesting that pro-lifers should dig into their own pockets and provide for the care and upbringing of children that would otherwise have been terminated...
killing a pregnant woman earns you TWO murder charges in any state.
This 'law' just exposes the pure hypocrisy in states like Texas where a pregnant woman gets done for driving an express car lane where you must have two or more people in your car.
So a foetus is a person for murder but not for car pooling but if you kill that pregnant woman in a car accident the foetus is counted against you in vehicular homicide.
Beam me up Scotty...
The right to bodily integrity, including privacy & sovereignty over one's own corporal self, is an unalienable right of all persons, of all sexes; like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and cannot be revoked by any governmental ruling, vote or edict.
The erroneous ruling on women's reproductive health care, including abortion, by the 5 reactionary Repub/trumpub politicians in black robes on the partisan Supreme Court, shows how much contempt they have for a person's unalienable rights and also for the judicial precept of stare decisis. Their unwarranted judicial activism has unjustly revoked a constitutional right from American citizens.
All the court have said is that it is *NOT* an issue for the courts to decide, it is explicitly for the elected politicians to decide. This isn;t a case of judicial over-reach, but the cancelling of judicial over-reach.
If the demos don't like what their elected executive implemented, then bloody well elect a dfifferent executive.
"No, but having 9 unelected bureaucrats making the laws most definitely is not democracy."
Actually, it is six (6) or five (5) unelected partisan reactionary politicians in black robes making the laws, that most definitely is not democracy.
The supreme court removed the law at federal level and put it back to state level.
That's a far more democratic movement because the citizens of the state do get to vote for who makes the decisions state wide.
The overturning of this law does not stop anyone doing what they want. They may have to move state but that's all .. that's like living in a dry state and complaining that there are no liquor stores..
Any it appears that judging by the downvotes that people here are ok with Mob Rule, good luck with that when you are suddenly on the wrong end of the stick....
No, SCOTUS ruled all Americans are not equal, women (and even children) being forced to carry pregnancies they do not want to carry. They knew exactly what they were doing when they took away the mothers right to decide to carry the pregnancy or not.
Claiming it somehow improves democracy, because only *some* American women in some GPS locations are being forced to carry pregancies to term, does not make democracy better.
Protesting such, is not "mob rule".
Republicans have a terrorist wing, the Proud boys and the Oath Keepers, recently reveal to be in contact with team Trump.
Proud Boys are a designated terrorist group in several countries. The Proud boys are the ones who raid libraries with guns, to scare kids at "Panto Drag Queen" story readings.
The Oath Keepers subvert law enforcement, they require the officers swear alligance to their version of the Constitution, and their 'thin blue line' version of the flag, rather than the legal interpretation of the Constitution and the actual Stars and Stripes.
Funny, that the police arrive just before the proud boys, guard the perimeter, almost as if their little group and the PBs are coordinated.
It's organized terrorism. REPUBLICAN organized terrorism.
These groups took arms, molotov cocktails, napalm, spears and other weapons to attack the Captiol and overturn the elections and install a dictator.
.... and you bitch about downvotes. Oh you poor victim.
No, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional justification for this to be removed from the normal elected decision-making process, and so it should be shoved right back up the pipes of the legislative process. If you *do* want it constitutionally bound, then bloody well legislate for a constitutional amendment to explicitly make it constitutionally bound. In the absence of which, it is specifically and explicitly in the hands of the demos through their elected representatives.
No, the Supreme court stripped women of the right to decide themselves whether to terminate their pregnancy. That others can fix what the Supreme court did (at least if they can overcome the Gerrymandering and Filabuster), does not lessen their damage.
It is currently with the States, and 10 year old rape victims have to flee home rather than carrying a life-threatening pregnancy to term.
I feel sorry that Kavanaugh thinks *HE* is the victim of his choices just because other people protest.
Such victimhood. The poor man, perhaps he'll cry some more of those crocodile tears.
"The supreme court removed the law at federal level and put it back to state level."
OK let's throw it back as the laws stand.
Dave wants to fire a gun in X state, but its illegal.
"Hi Bob, where can I go and fire a gun legally?"
That question is illegal to ask and anyone seeing that can effectively prosecute you.
"It's legal in Nevada"
That answer is illegal and anyone seeing that can effectively prosecute you.
"Great I'll look online and find a shooting range"
Anyone advertising this service can effectively prosecute you"
"I'm of to Nevada to shoot a gun"
That is illegal and anyone can effectively prosecute you.
"Well I shot my gun in Nevada where its legal"
That is an offence and anyone can prosecute you.
This is state level law?
Then vote Republican, when they held the House, Senate and Presidency they voted to "change the law' and limit Roe Wade.... which then went to SCOTUS to rule on. Oh wait, they didn't, none of that happened. Republicans didn't touch it when in power.
A very clear majority of Americans did not want women stripped of their right to choose to carry a baby to term or not. It would have been super unpopular. So they left it to the "Kavanaugh Kourt Krew", the unelected ones to do the deed for them.
And now its up to the democracy to restore the rights of women to choose, rights stripped away by the KKK's choice.
And maybe it will, maybe it will overcome the Gerrymandering (the KKK blocking Federal Courts of enforcing the minorities voting rights, while simultaneously admitting it violates that law, clever, a law that cannot be enforced), and the voter suppression (KKK enabled this too). Maybe it can overcome all the damage KKK has done to the US and to the democracy and maybe the democracy can fix it. What doesn't kill 'ya makes you stronger right???
And now we hear that *PROTESTING* their shit is somehow unreasonable, no, apparently everyone should be happy that KKK has *strengthened democracy*!
See, poor Kavanaugh, he will cry like a little girl, a little girl whose been raped and now has to flee her state so as not to carry a baby to term that might kill her. Does she not understand Kavanaugh is strengthening democracy? What a radical leftist she must me! Poor Kavanaugh might have had indigestion from those protests!
Why do keep droning on about women having their rights stripped, this is simply false..
The decision makers have changed that is all....
It's no longer SCOTUS, it's your local state.... Which means that "you" can vote to make the changes... Nothing is more democratic than that, the vote remains with "you".... What don't you understand about that, it really is very very simple.
DOXXING the Scotus memebers is tantamount to anarchy... It will achieve nothing but negative results.
@Khaptain: With all due respect, doxing appears to be an equal opportunity activity, with individuals on the "left" and the "right" (and elsewhere) being targets. That said, I share your concern about this form of mob rule ("Dox the witch!") being mistaken for democracy.
Such whiny victimhood from Republican liars. Turn on Fox, and hear Tucker Carlson spew hate to inspire mass murder one minute, then whine about being a victim the next.
A ten year old rape victim had to flee her state to get an abortion, thanks to Kavanaugh.
She would have been forced to give birth, despite her age making it life threatening to carry the baby to term.
It could easily have killed her.
Kavanaugh did that.
What did Kavanaugh have for dinner? Steak? Chocolate fondant? Glass of wine perhaps? Because he finished his meal, the protest was outside. He was told about it later.
Abortion doctors have been murdered thanks to SCOTUS ruling their private address is public. The doctor didn't have the secret service protections that liar Kavanaugh had.
Kavanaugh himself was not appointed by democracy, he was voted in by Jerrymandering. The court has since ruled GOP's anti-voter laws legals. The Republican SCOTUS is a slow motion coup, undermining the vote and dismantling democracy.
Democracy is not the victim of protestors. Democracy is the victim of Brett Kavanaugh and his Republican buddies.
This post has been deleted by its author
Khaptain, more than just “democrats” in the US have good reason to fear for their future safety because of that which they support and cause to be unlawful/illegal/criminal.
The following comment from a WillD on the article hyperlinked below highlights both the beginning of the end and end of the beginning whenever conflicts and corruption are not recognised nor properly treated as perversions and subversions to be avoided at any and all costs.
WillDJuly 7, 2022 at 23:40
Any regime (I call the UK government a ‘regime’) has plenty to hide. Regimes don’t do ‘democracy’, they only pretend to represent the voters. As we all know now, they represent a small number of vested interest groups and individuals, using public office and money to line their pockets, and a compliant, and complicit, media to keep up the pretence of democracy and distract our attention.
The more they rot the system, the more they want to cover it up. And the more individuals like Julian Assange reveal their wrongdoing, the more they try to persecute and punish them. It leads to totalitarian rule. ........ UK Bill Threatens Journalists With Life in Prison
The wider and more perverse truth is however, that anyone and everyone is threatened by a government/regime/political party experimenting with fascist type tendencies ...... and thus is it bound to ignite and empower revolutionary reaction and almighty activity which manifests itself in relentless opposition and overwhelming competition.
Its America where there are more guns than people, so considering that the overturning of Roe v Wade has got a lot of people pissed off, Even though most of the gun nut seem to be on the right, there are still enough on the far left with access to weapons.
So if all that happens is some doxxing, if i were the judges id consider that getting off quite lightly.
FYI i don't condone either the doxxing or any vigilante action against the judges,
What should happen is those judges that said in their congressional inaugurations that they consider Row v Wade as president and then later voted it down as soon as they got the chance, should be impeached for lying to congress and removed from the supreme court.
What should happen is those judges that said in their congressional inaugurations that they consider Row v Wade as president and then later voted it down as soon as they got the chance, should be impeached for lying to congress and removed from the supreme court.
Exactly. Though given the lies (number, not the quality) from the last President what else would anyone expect from those in power?
Disclaimer: I'm neither a Repub or Dem but an Independent. So if were any judge, Dem or Repub, they need to face the music.
"What should happen is those judges that said in their congressional inaugurations (sic) that they consider Row (sic) v Wade as president (sic) and then later voted it down as soon as they got the chance, should be impeached for lying to congress and removed from the supreme court."
The word you meant to type is "precedent", not "president", the case is Roe v. Wade (1973), and it was the nominee's Senate hearings, not their "congressional inaugurations".
"What should happen is those judges that said in their congressional inaugurations that they consider Row v Wade as president and then later voted it down as soon as they got the chance, should be impeached for lying to congress and removed from the supreme court."
This brings up a point. If the original Roe v Wade decision was "settled law" prior to this, why was every Supreme Court nominee for the past 40 years asked, very directly and very pointedly, if they would continue supporting it? It's almost as if the supporters realized the ruling was flawed and shouldn't really exist, but was in their favor, so they wanted to ensure nobody shook the machine back to normal behavior. How many other SCOTUS rulings in the past 50 years have gotten the same treatment?
Not even in the 4th Amendment, where it states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized."
Nothing about "privacy", even though it is described in the 4th amendment..
The word "private" is mentioned in the 5th Amendment, as in private property, i.e., land.
That's it as far as the Constitution is concerned.
I'm as much a conservative as you're likely to find, but I'm also an originalist, and you're not being honest in your reasoning.
1) The third amendment is very much, although not exclusively, about privacy. Pre-telephone, quartering is a VERY effective way of keeping an eye on "troublesome" people, and almost everyone involved in drafting and passing the constitution either themselves or their fathers would have qualified as "troublesome" not too much earlier.
2) The "and their papers" of the fourth amendment is, again, very much an issue of privacy. How would the "committees of correspondence" have fared if the government had driven very far against it? Or for that matter, what if a businessman happened to corrupt a government official & seize papers for competitive gain?
3) One of the objections that was raised against the Bill of Rights was that the inclusion of certain rights would result in the disparagement of others. The idea that these recent revolutionaries would have had _any_ truck with the "if you have nothing to hide, there should be no problem" bs that has occasionally been pressed by some faux-law-and-order types is laughable.
Privacy certainly _is_ one of the "unenumerated rights". That what has been done by prior courts at times under the banner of the privacy has been abominable does not affect this fact.
Glad to be spared having to point this out yet again. That said, due to the fact that it keeps getting abused, we should get something on the books that makes it clear that strong privacy rights are guaranteed to to private citizens and that government agencies and political figures need to held to a high standard of transparency. If you don't like that, don't take the job.
Otherwise they will codify the existing system where there is a double standard allowing officers like SCOTUS to claim rights they broadly deny ordinary citizens. In the mean time, the liberals(I'm not one of them) weren't calling for them to Doxxed or harrased. Now that they have been, some of them are shitposting, but they can't do what they did and not have major blowback. That was a choice they made, and they have to live with the consequences, just like the victims of the legal train wreck they intentionally created. Even if they chose to re-write abortion laws structure in the US, it was there choice to simply break it knowing the hodgepodge of laws and legal uncertainties this, and several of their other recent decisions would trigger.
Roe in particular was a hot mess of a legal opinion, but to it's credit it acknowledged that real peoples lives would be destroyed, and tried to implement a rational standard. It is absolutely clear that should have been handled by Congress, but since neither party could develop a spine while in the majority, the court (as what had been the last functional branch of the US government) held the line while a revolving door of presidents and congress members abdicated their core responsibilities.
If the court can kick a matter directly back to congress and force them to clean up their own mess, then they should at least pay some concern to impact of their policies. If they don't, legal or otherwise, they are going to face severe blowback. Considering the insane nature of some of the trigger laws, their security team probably needs the name of every adult family member of the child rape victims that the states are now literally trying to force to carry pregnancies to term. Those victims will have scores to settle, and that was a choice they chose to make with open eyes. In the months since the ruling was leaked they did exactly nothing to direct the states to prepare for the dumpster fire they planned to start.
Excellent points, AC.
There would need to be "exceptions" to a strong privacy law. Such has being able to investigate crimes or having law enforcement be able to snoop around say drug traffikers, terrorists, and their ilk. But, it could be done. Codifying Roe vs. Wade could have done. There's some who say it allows the government force abortions on people (goes back to the original case and the controversy surrounding it back then.
That said, due to the fact that it keeps getting abused, we should get something on the books that makes it clear that strong privacy rights are guaranteed to to private citizens and that government agencies and political figures need to held to a high standard of transparency.
Were you to do that, you'd put Google, Twatter, Faceplant, and all manner of Big Data analytics firms out of business.
Sounds like a plan!
Your comment included posting Amendment IV, but you apparently fail to comprehend and understand the meaning of the text of Amendment IV:
""The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..."
Being secure in one's person against unreasonable searches and seizures is the very definition of privacy.
Although Amendment IV does not explicitly contain the word "privacy", it does contain the very definition of the word "privacy".
The right to privacy is a Constitutional Right, as conferred in Amendment IV.
when even the most conservative and originalist members of the USSC refer to our form of government as "democracy". It makes me wonder if they think in the back of their heads that they were elevated to the Court by some sort of plebiscite.
And as for everyone else, the US has never had, and hopefully will never have anything approaching democracy as its form of government. We are a constitutional republic. The very fact that laws are passed by congress, and that the Courts dare to occasionally dismiss such laws a unconstitutional should, I think, be a constant reminder of this fact, but apparently not.
This is a common talking point by the same people shouting "constitution" completely out of context, as well as the bible.
It's also totally debunked. The US is a democracy, even today in these trying times. It always was, and was intended to be by the people that ratified the US and state constitutions. Some of the founders had other ideas, but that is what we actual passed.
The republic part simply describes how that democracy is structured and implemented. We also chose a bicameral congress instead of a parliamentary system, neither of which means it's not a democracy. Democracy does not mean every citizen has to vote on every act and every office, in case thats the version you have been sold.
That said the people feeding you that line(and maybe you are as well) are trying to sell the idea that the US isn't a democracy to normalize authoritarian moves to seize control and justify it. We see that. It's not going to work out the way they think it will, and while or government is broken and slow, the would be tyrants here should tread carefully. There is more to be lost in the attempt to undermine democracy then there is to gain.
"We are a constitutional republic"
Our government is a constitutional democratic republic.
Originally, the only "democracy" in our "constitutional democratic republic" was the House of Representatives. Then more democracy was added by Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, which made Black men, as well as White men, "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside".
Later Amendment XVII introduced more democracy to our "constitutional democratic republic", making Senators "elected by the people thereof" and not " chosen by the legislature thereof" as originally written.
More democracy was added to our "constitutional democratic republic" by Amendment XIX, granting women the right to vote.
There is still too much "republic" in our "constitutional democratic republic", i.e.
* 2 Senators per State (California - 2 Senators v. Wyoming - 2 Senators); and
* the Electoral College (President & Vice President are elected by Electors of the Electoral College, not by popular vote, as is the case for all other elected offices).
But, one can hope that if the trumpubs don't succeed in destroying our "constitutional democratic republic", that our "constitutional democratic republic" will eventually become more democratic with:
* instead of the House consisting of 435 members for a nation of ~330,000,000 people, the number of House seats would be roughly similar to the proportional number of House seats in the 1st Congress, viz. 65 seats for a population of ~3,900,000, or 1 seat for ~60,000 people. This would equal ~5,500 House seats today, instead of only 435;
* the Senate would have seats proportional to population, with California having many more Senators than Wyoming, with just 1 or 2;
* the repeal of the Electoral College and the President and Vice President elected by majority vote.
Our government is a constitutional democratic republic.
This post has been deleted by its author
The question is, is it revenge, or is it damage reduction? Are they being "attacked" in response to what they did, or are the being discouraged/prevented from doing it again?
If the FDA bans Martin Shkreli from buying any more pharmaceutical patents are they punishing him for past misdeeds, or are they preventing future misdeeds. A and B may both be correct.
It will be if Donnie Dickwit gets a second term. Because if he does it'll be Civil War II: The Search for More Corpses and everyone will get drawn in, because Inbredistan.
This isn't a world where a country like Inbredistan having a civil war is an event that can be localised.
I keep reminding people of this. Encouraging the downfall of the U.S. by violence will leave no corner of the world untouched.
Making the U.S. stop its evil ways? Yeah, that needs to happen. Sudden violent destruction of the nation? Who in their right mind wants a rogue nation that controls thousands of nukes and the most powerful military in history? For that matter, who in their right minds want a fascist theocracy controlling same?
No one, absolutely no one will escape unscathed from that scenario.
As long as you march in line, follow all the rules, and smile when you do it. Easier said than done?
And what ever happened to the separation of Church and State?? Seems that line is so blurry it looks like it's been erased with a very old and crumbling eraser. It's just a big nasty smudge on that 200+ year old paper now.
Like the Wicked Witch said... "Oh what a world..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n0wMeOdpg4
Spend the 3 minutes to re-watch this ending... and think about all the BS that's gone down in the US in the past 6 years.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
