Oy Vey
 

Didn't Brandeis "find it" in his dissent in Olmstead v. U.S.?

aV

Heh. That aura gets me in trouble every time. I should start making better choices.

Too late. You found and posted on the PB.

Case in point. But frankly, there aren't enough girls posting regularly on this board, so I felt a pull.

Hank sometimes pretends to be a girl. Does that count?

Hank seems to have gender concerns, generally. And while I respect his right to self-define, I'd have to say no, it doesn't count.

Oy Vey
 

I believe this is the first time the right to privacy is given constitutional overtones. In the Brandeis article, it almost sounds like the right to privacy helps to balance other rights, like the right to free speech.

But the first time the court finds a power or right to be implied rather than explicit in the constitution is McCullough v. Maryland; in this case, the early federalist-dominated court rejected strict constructionism as an interpretative method the first time the court had the opportunity to consider it, early in the life of the Republic.

PB's where its at
 

Powerful, indeed.


As the Black Sheep said:

Know you've heard the others, phonies to the lovers
Then of course, the choice is yours

You can get with this, or you can get with that
I think you'll get with this, for this is where it's at


eta: fwiw, W wouldn't know those black sheep, he hates black people......although not as much as Democratic Party Conscience the Honourable Senator Grand Cyclops Bobby Byrd

I used to have some socks that appeared to be female. Does that count?

Does notfrommensa "appear to be female" when part of the conceit is that nfh is actually a guy?

Strict Construction
 

The papists need to be constrained, but notwithstanding that, the expansiveness of all of our rights is, quite simply, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the only Amendment that really counts.

I heard a rumour that juan is now juanita, nttawwt. Is that true or perhaps just a sweet transvestite?

PB's where its at
 

Hmmm, affirmation, song lyrics and gratuitous political swipes, all in one! No wonder I wound up here.

PB's where its at
 

I'm multi-talented. nttawwt.

I heard the same thing. Sweet as...cherry pie.

PB's where its at
 

Join the club.

No. juan es muy muy macho!

I don't know. You know how it is when rumors get started.

Wow, that is a scary reference. Have you been reading my diary?

PB's where its at
 

I respect the Club, he is a sensible poster, but I think I want to keep it platonic with him, n.o., nttawwt.

Yes, you emailed it to me, remember?

No, but apparently Hank has, nttawwt.

:doh3: , that was the wine emailing.

PB's where its at
 

"n.o."?

Oh, oops. Do you want it back? I'm only through Volume I so far, so the secrets of Volumes II - XXX are still safe for the moment.

PB's where its at
 

No offence. I didn't want to hurt his feelings.

But is he the correct answer to the age-old question:

Quien es mas macho?

PB's where its at
 

Okay, I can see why you'd want to tread lightly there.

Because I thought Penske might like to know.
 

Who had the over?

On second day of hearings, Roberts questioned on Roe, abortion.

“It’s entitled to respect under those principles,” Roberts said. “I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent. It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided.”

In his writings, Roberts has argued that the Roe v. Wade decision by the high court had been wrongly decided.

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren’t surprised by Roberts’ comments Tuesday but would watch him closely.

“We’re concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it’s time for him to rule on these cases as a justice,” Newman said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/

Strict Construction
 

With the majority of the Supreme Court members being either Jewish or Catholic, do you really think the papists can be constrained?

Opt Out
 

Proving once again that the Right loses interest in the unborn child once it is born. Child support is not an obligation of the parent, it's a duty owed to the child. So much for those family values.

Opt Out
 

I think Slave even acknowledged this notion hasn't gained popular support. But I'm sure you didn't intend to broad-brush the entire right side of the aisle based on one person's idea?

Justice Janice Rodgers Brown
 

That would be an oxymoron. Statutes always trump the common law. The common law cannot secure rights against the legislature; that has to be done by higher authority -- state constitution, federal constitution, or (in some circumstances) federal law.

At least, that's what I dimly remember from law school.

Did I miss the collective bout of insomnia last night?

Opt Out
 

Oh, I'll stop when Penske, Slave, bilmore, Hank, and Spanky do. What goes around, Dish it out, can't take it, etc. etc.

Justice Janice Rodgers Brown
 

I think you are missing the unwritten English constitution, but that is of questionable merit across the ocean and irrelevant here.

Opt Out
 

"He started it!"

PB's where its at
 

You know I love you like a brother.

Opt Out
 

I'm not taking Slave's side in this debate -- it's one of those issues where I think he gets a little loopy -- but I'm pretty sure you cannot have a duty to someone without an obligation from someone. It's like ebony and ivory.

Obligee gets the du-ty!
They're together in perfect har-mo-ny!
Get her pregant and you will have to pay lots of mo-ney!

Where Were the Planes?
 

Didn't we establish last week that the whining pathetic little fools can't take it all? I'm not sure we need to establish that every week. But you'd think they'd take a hint. Let's ignore them and raise the level of discourse this week instead.

Opt Out
 

[channeling penske]"Then why do weeeeeeeeeee?[/channeling penske]