From MSNBC :
Quote:Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considered the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he could not agree to strike it down because he found no general right to privacy in the Constitution.
Thomas calls himself a strict adherent to the actual words of the Constitution as opposed to modern-day interpretations. If he were a Texas legislator and not a judge, Thomas said, he would vote to repeal the law.
"Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources," Thomas wrote.
(Emphasis mine.)
Can't Justice Thomas read?
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, 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.
How can the people be secure in their persons without having privacy? What does the Justice believe is the limit of the people's security of their persons if no warrant has been issued or crime alleged?
Mama's right
Quote:Anyway, it's about time. Although I should think it make some politicians nervous, because the Clinton impeachment had so much to do with the invasion of personal privacy.
The Supreme Court is realizing that the recent invasiveness strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a free person while trying hard to hold the door open for the likes of John Ashcroft to be able to read all the files on your computer and put cameras on every square foot of the fifty states.
I just heard a guy on NPR?BUR radio who says that there really is no GENERAL right to privacy. He's a law prof at Boston U (I think, I was driving and couldn't write any details down).
Quote:Rights of Privacy and the Constitution
We examine issues dealing with rights to privacy following comments made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that such rights are not explicitly guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
Here and Now, WBUR
Maybe there will be a transcript later.....?
I vote for a rousing rendition of this song to anyone who opposes the newly passed decision. Anyone up for wassailing some judges?
The Two Gay Irishmen
Red Peters with the Smokin' Cockneys
The whole clan met at Galway Bay
where seamen push up stools
they were giggling like the Coleens
and playing pocket pool
they washed their balls in stout that night
and bid their last good-byes
"We're off to kiss the Blarney Stone,
so zipper up your flys!"
CHORUS
Well fudge your undies laddies
you're on you're way to Blarney
with Gerald Fitzpatrick
and Patrick Fitzgerald
the two gay Irishmen!
"Well grab your bags!" cried Pat Magroin
it's time to pick your seat.
While Paddy O'Furniture grabbed the wheel
Dick Burns turned up the heat
they fiddled and diddled all full of malarky
their trousers felt a lump
so the Bulgers grabbed their Johnsons
and gave them all a pump
CHORUS
Well fudge your undies laddies
you're on you're way to Blarney
with Gerald Fitzpatrick
and Patrick Fitzgerald
the two gay Irishmen!
(instrumental break)
Well Peter Hickey, Rick O'Shea
Neal Downe and Phillip McCann
Dick Long pulled out his shillelagh
and with it lead the band
Phil McCracken started snackin'
on leprechaun-on-the cob
the bus began to rumble
and heads began to bob.
(instrumental break)
And so they kissed the Blarney Stone
and grabbed the gift of gab
Connie Lingus snapped their portrait
in front of that mossy slab
all they had on were the smiles on their faces
a grinnin' from ear to ear
from left to right
I'll call out their names
I'll tell you who was there...
Well fudge your undies laddies
you're on the way to Blarney
with...
Pat Magroin
Paddy O'Furniture
Dick Long
the Bulgers, the Johnsons
Peter Hickey
Rick O'Shea
Neal Downe
Phillip McCann
Dick Burns
Phil McCracken
Michael Fitzpeter
Peter Fitzmichael
Maurice Fitzhenry
Henry Fitzmaurice
and...
Gerald Fitzpatrick
and Patrick Fitzgerald
the two gay Irishmen!
the two gay Irishmen!
the two gay Irishmen!
littlek
Just to give you an idea about 'right of privacy lokks like in old Europe, here from Germany (and we really think, it's quite limited!):
Quote:RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
The general right to individual privacy guarantees the integrity of an individual's immediate personal sphere of existence. It embraces, for example, their honour, good character and public reputation, the right to their own physical appearance and their own name, and their intimate personal life. The concept was defined by the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and Federal Court of Justice, as derived from the guarantees of human dignity and personal liberty, and ranks as a basic right .
The purpose of the general right to individual privacy is to provide more flexible and comprehensive protection than that guaranteed by the traditional fundamental freedoms. Its protective scope is therefore not rigidly defined, and it is open to further development. In 1983, for example, the Federal Constitutional Court derived from it the right of self-determination over personal data .
Since its protective scope is wide-ranging, exercise of the general right to individual privacy frequently gives rise to conflicts with the interests of third parties, particularly the freedom to express their opinion. In the event of its unjustified infringement the individual concerned is entitled, irrespective of whether such infringement is on the part of organs of the state or of private persons, to claim eradication of the consequences of the infringement and abstention in the future from the wrongful act concerned. In serious cases (gross defamation, for example) they are also entitled to be paid compensation for pain and distress ("Schmerzensgeld").
"Persönlichkeitsrecht"
This is a basic right, you see.
walter, i'm just the messenger...... and i'm too hot too think.
I don't know anything, really, about interpreting the constitution. just saying what i heard on the radio as spoken by somone who has better credentials than many to do such interpretations. making no judgement about any of what thomas said.
While I like the end results of this decision I think the decisions (on all sides) will go down as the worst decisisons ever written by the USSC.
Joe Nation - The key words in Thomas's opinion are "general right". That means that it isn't directly written in the words of the text itself. Any right that would be the result of the questions you pose would be an
implied right. Roe v. Wade was decided based on an implied right of privacy between a woman and her doctor.
lil k - The lawyer you heard (as well and Thomas's comments in his dissenting notes) are quotes from Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion in
Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965:
Quote:"The Court says it is the right of privacy 'created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.' With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court"
When I came in the three of them were already working hard at attatching the living room camera.
"Uh, hello??" I said.
"Hiyah," replied the one in the green tee-shirt. "Dis won't take too long. Be outta here in an hour tops."
"What are you doing?" I asked looking at the tall one string wire down my hallway.
"Oh! Jeez. Al! C'm'ere, here another one that ain't heard the news."
Al breathed a long sigh and dropped the stapler he was holding and reached into his rear jeans pocket. As he came over to me he unfolded the four or five pages of paper and smoothed them on his belly. "By order of the Office of Homeland Security, the US government is installing cameras in every room in every house, apartment, business...."
"Every dog house, outhouse, cat house.."chuckled green teeshirt.
"Shut up, Jerome, " said Al, " Sorry about that. Where was I.. oh, in order than all persons of the USA remain secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects." He smiled and went back to stapling the wires into the kitchen.
"But this is my home, what about my privacy?"
"I don't know babe, but the Constitution don't say the word 'privacy', but it does say 'secure' and Mr. Ashcroft wants to be able to look in on you and make sure you are secure every moment of the day or night."
==
Jerome was right, they were gone in forty minutes. The new white wires clashed with the just off white of the walls. I could hear the camera mount
motors being tested in the bedroom and bath, then all was quiet. I sat down on the sofa and stared at the black tv screen, it stared back.
Joe
Beautiful, Joe -- just beautiful.
A couple hours later there was a knock at the door. It was Jerome, Al and the other dude. "Cameras working okay?"
"Yeah, seem to be."
"Great! We brought cocktails and lube..."
Everyone got naked and a long night of sodomy was had by all, and all captured on film! That video made me a ton of money on the internet. Thanks guys!
So you didn't notice that I hacked your Visa-account?
Ha ha, go right ahead, inherit my debt Walter
That will stay there, cav, I'm only transferring the porn money.
Laugh away and make your jokes, free-thinking people. The likes of Phyllis Schaffly, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson are on the march. Can't have any of this stuff going on, no sir! (And my 11 year old grandson's explanation of sodomy to a young neighbor was worth the upset I got when actually reading Scalia's opinion. He did it with graphics on the hood of the car.)
Taken in context with three or four other major rulings handed down by the court within a short space of time, each has an impact, but together they form a formidable whole. And the decisions have to do with the rights of the citizens; cases where the WH and the AG were in direct opposition. The Court has shown itself to be independent thinkers, which is important. And when they retired for the session, all indicated they would be back for the fall session.
As for the common folks, they pay more attention to the fall-out from such Supreme Court decisions than is thought, because each of these touched upon the lives of just ordinary people.
Now, the leather clubs, I would think, come under a different category.. But this decision should give some impetus to the economy. Think what can be sold more openly now!
Oh, I agree we have to watch these freakazoid uber-nazis. I, for one, will be watching the Pride Day parade this weekend in Toronto, and celebrating that both Canada and the US recently made small inroads towards gay rights, and the right to privacy.
So this decision means that the good reverend Falwell can now go f*ck himself ... legally?
Sorry, that type of comment is not at all my style, but I'm so tired of the bigotry and hatred perpetrated by so-called men of the cloth. If there is an afterlife and if these guys actually get to "heaven", I hope they learn that Jesus was gay and have to spend eternity dealing with it.
Hey Joe,
It's not easy holding on to a sense of humor regarding guys like Falwell, but I do try. All kidding aside, can you imagine what the court will be like if Bush gets another Scalia or another Thomas aboard ?
For a man who promised to try to unite the country, his selling out to the radical right wing has been devastatingly divisive. Can his extremist policies really get him re-elected ? Has mainstream America strayed that far from our heritage of fairness, compassion, inclusiveness, integrity and honor ?
(sigh)
