Michigan GOP Candidates Oppose Right to Privacy After so many years of conservatives complaining about intrusive government violating privacy, it really doesn't seem so unusual that all three Republican candidates for Michigan Attorney General oppose the right to privacy. It seemed a straightforward question in Friday night's debate: "How do each of you stand on Griswold v. Connecticut?" The answers were interesting to be certain. Steve Benen↱ explains: As plenty of non-lawyers probably know, Griswold was a landmark case in modern American history. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 ruling, struck down a Connecticut law that restricted married couples' access to birth control. The court majority said such statutes are impermissible because they violate Americans' right to privacy. This was the first time the justices had ever acknowledged the existence of a constitutional right to privacy, and it had a dramatic effect on American jurisprudence, including helping lay the foundation for the Roe v. Wade ruling eight years later. Over at Mother Jones, Tim Murphy↱ observes— With the Supreme Court poised to strike down or at least thoroughly gut Roe, it was notable to see a conservative activist ask three men who oppose it, and who are aspiring to be the chief law enforcement officer of a state that still has an abortion ban on its books, what they think of the famous contraception case. But that assumed that all the candidates even knew what Griswold was. —and that's the catch. While a conservative activist might have asked the question, none of the conservative candidates were ready for it. Tom Leonard, who lost his bid for AG in 2018, asked to be reminded what the case was, and then answered that the Griswold decision "was wrongly decided, because it was an issue that trampled states' rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states". And that was the theme. State Rep. Ryan Berman (R-39) looked it up on his phone before acknowledging that he "wasn't familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut", but claimed himself "an advanced legal researcher" before assessing, "I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I'm all about states' rights and limiting federal judicial activism." Matthew DePerno, a Trump-endorsed tax attorney, complained about not knowing he could have his phone onstage, and then tried a broader answer about the Supreme Court: "Listen, all these cases that deal—Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs—these are all state right issues", and described "these liberty issues" as "unworkable" before declaring, "It's going to be a state right issue on all of these things—as it should be!" We should also take the moment to clarify: Griswold, in addition to citing the Third Amendment in its establishment of privacy, was also a First Amendment case. And perhaps it makes a good rally cry among Republicans, but these candidates for Attorney General have declared that freedom of speech, press, and religion are states' rights issues to be variably resolved according to political whim, and that a state can even decide to defy the prohibition against quartering troops. And while, "Michigan Republicans Surrender American Revolution", isn't quite the right headline, it gets pretty close. And for the non-lawyers who already knew what Griswold was about in large part because of Republican opposition to privacy rights, there really isn't much about this turn that seems new. As with so much of American conservatism in recent years, what stands out is how directly, explicitly, and pridefully conservatives are willing to come right out and say it. Think of it this way: A Canadian protester answering a Canadian court invoked his First Amendment rights, but in the U.S., where the First Amendment was created, enacted, and remains in effect, conservative candidates would prefer states be given the power to call it off. That is to say, maybe the Candadian protest organizer who received a sponsored seat on a private flight to Ottawa where he rallied protestors (and whose wife is a secessionist organizer) really doesn't know politics, but in the U.S., where the First Amendment is actually a real thing, Republicans are lining up in opposition, and it is reasonable to suggest we ought not be surprised. The bottom line: Michigan Republican candidates for Attorney General are lining up against the right to privacy, and will sacrifice the First and Third Amendments in order to do so. This is a striking contrast compared to decades spent ... er, well, right. Do we attend only the words conservatives utter, or do we also observe what they mean and how they work? Yes, it looks like a striking contrast, but those decades spent lamenting intrusive government also included efforts toward bedroom, church, and library regulation. But, for instance, there have been plenty over time who complain that studying the epidemiology of gun violence violates privacy rights, but here we have apparent cohort overlap with those who refuse that very right to privacy. Oh, and then some trivia: The state law stricken in Griswold was a speech ban established in the nineteenth century, brought before the Connecticut legislature by none other than P. T. Barnum. So, yeah, conservatives lining up against the right to privacy, with Amendments I and III in their crosshairs, can look like something of a contrast, but the only surprise about it is how bluntly explicit they are. Democrats and their supporters stubbornly declare they are "with her", but the idea that Republicans ride with Barnum is so perfectly, stupidly ironic as to achieve a kind of clarion literary ineffability. And for the Michigan AG candidates, it's as if they have worked their whole lives in order to become icons of a bad joke on a bumper sticker people will someday regret ever putting on their cars. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Asked about contraception case, GOP candidates give the wrong answer". MSNBC. 21 February 2022. MSNBC.com. 21 February 2022. https://on.msnbc.com/3sTZ1oB Murphy, Tim. "Michigan Republicans Were Asked About a Landmark Contraception Case. Their Answers Were 'Terrifying.'" Mother Jones. 19 February 2022. MotherJones.com. 21 February 2022. https://bit.ly/3IbOSKc See Also: Molina, Kimberly and Bobby Hristova. "No bail decision yet for Tamara Lich, convoy protest organizer". CBC News. 19 February 2022. CBC.ca. 21 February 2022. https://bit.ly/3vbENtn
I find the concept, in its current way of operation, weird and a expensive system I am OK with STATES existing, however ALL laws should be made by FEDERAL Government In situations where a particular problem with a federal law causes difficulty in a section of a state carve out a nitch in the federal law to solve the problem This has the effect of keeping all laws federal while accommodating particular anomalies in states Federal politicians can be assigned to a state, hopefully of their preference, administer any anomaly laws, partition for new anomaly laws as required to meet needs of their state (fiefdom) If other sections of the country find similar problems in their fiefdom bingo law is already in place My 2 cents worth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, fulfilling that would require a new U.S. Constitution. That would seem to imply the end of equal protection under the law. With the Roberts Court, for instance, see Safford and Ricci from the chief justice's first term; the majority didn't want to follow precedent or case law, but also did not want to be seen overturning particular laws, so it wrote one-time carve-outs for molesting schoolgirls (Safford) and entrenched hiring discrimination (Ricci). That is, sure, ignorance isn't bliss, but it's unfair to expect school officials to know a properly promulgated law pertaining to pretenses of search and seizure involving minor students, and, besides, if it had been a boy with a hot woman teacher it would have been cool, so girls just need to hop on the trolley and do as they're told; and, oh, sure, the Civil Service Board actually followed the law, but how dare they. That's what carve-outs look like. Someone just didn't want to follow the law. Still, the Griswold decision established a right to privacy per the U.S. Constitution; it also upheld a First Amendment right to free speech. Even by your carve-out scheme, these are candidates for state attorney general who think rights to privacy and speech need carve-outs for state and local abridgment. 'Tis a curious distraction.
You may be correct. I'm not that deep into that aspect. Considering how Americans cling to their blankets tighter than Linus ya a big problem Hard to imagine a Federal law which provides equal protection to all USA persons can have a nitch cut out by a state to take away said Federal protection Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay, then: For all the disdain you show the United States, you don't seem to actually know how things work.
I was not aware I was required to actually know how things work before I could actually show disdain against it Must remember at my next disdaining moment (ummmm do I know how this works? NO! Then I cannot disdain it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Honestly, I would have thought even you were capable of figuring out that your criticism is worth more if it has a clue to begin with.
Honestly, I(You) would have thought even you(I) were capable of figuring out that your(my) criticism is worth more (how much and would if be sufficient to have a massive impact?) if it (long time since I have been referred to as it - in The Munster's I was Cousin It) has a clue to begin with. Truely? You would be reasonably correct. My issue being - I was not aware I was required - the actually - or - absolutely - indeed - for real - literally - genuinely - really - in fact - truely (could be more) Thought I could wing (bamboozle) the Minions out there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Enough frivolity - coffee moment coming up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edited some moments later Apart from criticism does the capable of figuring out rule apply to pretentious? Know a few its (persons) I could apply (attach) such a label to Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Coffee does Michael 345 goooood Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It Happened Again: Blackburn Rides with Barnum So, it's a thing: At first blush, the fact that Sen. Marsha Blackburn released a video statement over the weekend, criticizing Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, may not seem interesting. After all, the Tennessee Republican has earned a reputation as one of the Senate’s most reflexive far-right partisans. The idea that Blackburn would even consider supporting a Supreme Court nominee from President Joe Biden is difficult to take seriously. With this in mind, much of the GOP senator’s statement was forgettable, including Blackburn’s claim that she was “shocked” when Jackson said in writing that she doesn’t have a judicial philosophy, per se. But in the same video, the Tennessean, reading carefully from a teleprompter, eventually said something genuinely interesting: “Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut, Kelo v. City of New London, and NFIB v. Sebelius confuse Tennesseans and leave Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.” The rhetoric came less than a month after Republican candidates for state attorney general in Michigan also denounced the Griswold v. Connecticut precedent. American conservativism has long been at least a little conflicted about the right to privacy. To the other, it's one thing if some right-winger who always thinks his rights are under assault denounces doctors for asking about health hazards in the home, but Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is a U.S. Senator who also believes equality is wrong. And look, conservatives will have some diversity among them, but watch how it goes. It's almost like they want privacy in order to create victims, but public intrusion to disrupt victims seeking remedies of either medicine or justice. Moreover, the manner in which Sen. Blackburn's role as a politician, over the years, has been to denigrate and diminish women, is exemplary of conservative character. But also observe that in her disdain for the Griswold decision, the senior U.S. Senator from Tennessee has established her opposition to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If she doesn't like the right to privacy, then perhaps she should explain why freedom of speech, press, and assembly were insufficient to protect medical discourse from censorship. (Hint: Justice Stewart couldn't, either.) It's probably a good thing conservatives aren't saying much about the rights of association or educating one's children, nor the inquiry, thought, and teaching that justifies free speech. Even then, though, the argument against was pretty thin: Justice Black felt that the right of privacy required continued involvement of the courts to approve or refuse particular privacy, and Justice Stewart found nothing in the First Amendment to invalidate a law prohibiting discussion of certain medical information. No, really, the conservative argument has always been excremental. (Trivia: Among concurring opinions in Griswold, Justice Harlan II followed in his grandfather's footsteps. The first Justice Harlan refused the doctrine of "separate but equal" in favor of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause; his was the lone dissent in Plessy. Having achieved the Court the year after his grandfather's vindication in Brown, the latter Harlan would, in 1965, rely on the Fourteenth to bolster the majority opinion in favor of a right to privacy.)____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Blackburn denounces Supreme Court contraception ruling from 1965". MSNBC. 21 March 2022. MSNBC.com. 21 March 2022. https://on.msnbc.com/3In9j6k See also: Vile, John R. "Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)". The First Amendment Encyclopedia. 2009. MTSU.edu. 21 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3wu7X7s
Well, you definitey don't. But if (for example) you became irate because in the US women were not allowed to vote, well . . . you can be irate about anything you like, actually. But your disdain would perhaps be better directed at a country that actually had such laws.
But I like winging it Pulls a sad face Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And There It Is Show of hands: Who is surprised? Wait: Surprised about which part? It is nearly a guffaw, the first time through, from Brian Tyler Cohen↱: Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) just said the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 and that states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage if they want to. But it's not a joke. The report from Niki Kelly↱ is a little more straightforward: @SenatorBraun told reporters today the issue of abortion should be left to states to decide. In a follow-up, he said the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't have legalized interracial marriage nationally. Instead it should have been up to individual states. So, here's the way it works: All this noise about Griswold has to do with overturning Roe v. Wade, and everything else cascades from there. Heartland Signal↱ provides the video: REPORTER: You would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states? BRAUN: Yes … if you're not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you're not going to be able to have your cake and eat it, too; I think that's hypocritical. REPORTER: What about Griswold v. Connecticut? BRAUN: Well, you can list a whole host of issues; when it comes down to whatever they are I'm going to say that they're not going to all make you happy within a given state, but we're better off having states manifest their points of view, rather than homogonizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did. So, who is surprised? Like, did you really think Republicans weren't going there, haven't been working their way there for decades? The idea that conservatives wanted to undo Loving v. Virginia? Really? 2015. 2013. 2003. 1992. At what point in the Gay Fray would someone saying this was really about white supremacist Christian conservatives trying to undo interracial marriage have not sounded ridiculous, except, well, here we are. Who is surprised, then, that he just came right out and said it like that? Yeah, it finally clicked with the junior U.S. Senator from Indiana. Julie Tsirkin↱ follows up: Sen Braun walks back his comments, saying he "misunderstood" the question. "There is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form..." It's not quite the question Mr. Braun misunderstood; at best, he just failed to think through the implications of leaving interracial marriage to the states. It's not like he slipped on a case name; the reporter actually said, "interracial marriage". Still, even as the E&O of supreme thoughtlessness, it seems significant that this is where Braun ended up. While matters of perspective are often regarded simply as differences of opinion, sometimes the logical results exhibit significant contrasts; that is, perhaps someone more accustomed to viewing supremacism differently would have noticed the flashing red lights and clanging alarm bells—perhaps for Braun there just weren't any alarms. Such as it is, conservatives have been saying the quiet parts out loud for a while, now, and that's on top of not really being very subtle about it for even longer. Personally, it is hard to not recall, and wonder what to make of, old moral wags against liberal condescension. And that's the thing, it wasn't that they were all necessarily crazy or supremacist, but that it kept coming up; thinking back even five years, it's true, conservatives have pretty much humiliated their advocates and empathetic defenders. ____________________ @HeartlandSignal. "REPORTER: 'You would be okay with the Supreme Court leaving the issue of interracial marriage to the states?' SEN. MIKE BRAUN (R-IN): 'Yes. If you are not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you are not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too.'" Twitter. 22 March 2022. Twitter.com. 22 March 2022. https://bit.ly/37Uct55 @JulieNBCNews. "Sen Braun walks back his comments, saying he "misunderstood" the question. There is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form...'" Twitter. 22 March 2022. Twitter.com. 22 March 2022. https://bit.ly/356nFuk @nkellyatJG. "@SenatorBraun told reporters today the issue of abortion should be left to states to decide. In a follow-up, he said the U.S. Supreme Court shouldn't have legalized interracial marriage nationally. Instead it should have been up to individual states." Twitter. 22 March 2022. Twitter.com. 22 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3qqMus8 @NoLieWithBTC. "NEW: Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) just said the Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 and that states should be allowed to ban interracial marriage if they want to. (per @nkellyatJG)". Twitter. 22 March 2022. Twitter.com. 22 March 2022. https://bit.ly/3JD1QBy
