http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

sounds like a scalia clone - cutting back on the commerce clause power, deferring to the executive branch, etc.

Say goodbye to abortion rights if he's confirmed. Double goodbye when William Rehnquist retires and is replaced with another conservative justice.

It also looks like Roberts isn't exactly the tree hugging type either.

"abortion rights"

yeah, good luck outlawing me kicking a girl down a flight of stairs, i don't care if they get the conservative Globetrotters on the bench.

I would still laugh if they did the ol' confetti in the water bucket gag to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

or the right to control over what happens with your own body.


the counter argument to your "quotes" - there are many judicially recognized rights that aren't spelled out in the constitution but arise from the 5th and 14th amendments and the fundamental ideas of privacy that are foundational in our democracy (constitution, federalist papers, declaration of independence, etc.). Of course this changes over time so if you go along with this construct you have to be ready for the contraction of these rights - which sucks sometimes.

But you don't have the right to control what happens with your own body, either.

Equating abortion with a right is political wordplay.

you do according to the supreme court over the past 100 years or so. there are a lot of fundamental rights which have been recognized under the general umbrella of privacy/autonomy such as the right to refuse medical treatment, the right to control your own children, the right to custody of your children, the right to procreate, the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to travel domestically, and the right to abortion before viability

of course these rights have been cut away at and limited for years.

I love political quotes like this. What were we supposed to assume, that he "devoted his entire professional life to the cause of eating kittens"?

Ahhhh, "viability". Nothing so good as injecting another undefinable grey area into the law.

What about medical marijuana, seat belts, motorcycle helmets and up until recently, sodomy?

I know the recent marijuana case was introduced as an interstate commerce argument, but still.

I'm not saying you aren't wrong, but rights to do with your own body aren't exactly comprehensive.

Where's my right to belt my body into my car and propel myself down the highway at 140 mph?

trying to make everything black and white in the law (and in many other places) is usually a losing proposition

i think viability makes more sense than the trimester framework that Roe laid out and has since gone by the wayside.

With advancing technology we could get the Pro-Lifer Crowd in bed with the scientists in no time!

I couldn't disagree with you more. The law is the one place where things should, nay, must be black and white. Laws are not subjective. Actions are either legal or they're not.

These rights haven't been deemed "fundamental" by the Court so no go on these. If you want to bring a case - give it a shot! ha.

Anything not a fundamental right can be regulated/proscribed the government and all they have to meet is rational basis review and will nearly always pass unless there is some severe animus (such as in Romer)

These fundamental rights are very limited, but when the Court establishes one, government action has to pass a higher level of scrutiny (strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny) depending on which right we are talking about. everyting else - rational basis.

really? so killing someone should always be a crime?

Absent self-defense or act of war, yes.

Right, but they have to do with the idea of controlling your own body in private, which disproves the idea you can do what you want.

What the hell am I missing here? Doesn't the fact that they haven't been deemed fundamental prove my point?

Take it easy on me Mr. Bugliosi; I'm so tired and I'm scanning all these fucking real estate pictures that have to be done by tomorrow.

what about defense of others? defense of property?

most areas of law are gray areas where interests are balanced and something like justice is done.

if this wasn't the case there would be no need for judges or lawyers so just stop or I am screwed.

Boy, I could use an abortion right about now.

i never meant to say you can do whatever you want with your own body. there are just some things you can do and it is hard for the government to tell you no - interest balancing again.

Have you ever considered the television judiciary, Rodney?