Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,197 posts)
104. The argument doesn't follow.
Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:57 PM
Jul 2012

Particular rights can be strongly implied even if a general right can't be inferred.

You need privacy for freedom of the press because if you can be compelled to give up sources for any reason then you will have far fewer sources. It's not a yes/no freedom/no-freedom but one of extent. Still, we side with more freedom of the press and that means privacy for sources. It's not absolute: Journalists can be legally compelled to give up sources.

You also need privacy for conspiracy or covering up a murder. There is no privacy there. None. You don't have to confess. But a right to obstructing the law isn't exactly in the Constitution. Perhaps it should be. Probably not.

Or let's look at a more narrow case. My health arrangements are entirely between me and my doctor, and my insurance is entirely between me and my insurance company (who pays the doctors). My insurance provisions are strictly between me and my employer (who largely pays the company), and made known, to the extent necessary, to my doctor.

So why does my employer have to fess up concerning my insurance status? Or why would I? Now, it's written in a limited way to comport with other privacy statutes, but if my employer and I agreed to have coverage less than legally required, and my insurance company agreed, why is it the government's business? Don't I have a right to privacy?

It's even put into law in a weird way. Let's assume I do have the right. Then I would be hit by a penalty/tax. It's like having freedom of the press where sources are confidential, but journalists have to pay a $1000 tax unless they divulge their sources. It meets the requirements of the law and Constitution, right? Then privacy's respected--taxed, but respected.

Not that I especially like this kind of reasoning. But it does mean that you have limited privacy and that the government, when it suits the government, when it finds a reason that the courts think sufficient (which often means 'enough of the population finds sufficient') has no reason to respect it.

and his opinion on Viagara? riverbendviewgal Jul 2012 #1
I was thinking the same thing. Th1onein Jul 2012 #14
Ditto, ditto.... SoapBox Jul 2012 #30
Any thinking person would realize the Constitution, while a very powerful document is not eternal. nanabugg Jul 2012 #48
Key words: "thinking person". progressoid Jul 2012 #54
this man is such a fucking pig. what a complete fucking pig he is. He must have really roguevalley Jul 2012 #57
Maybe his mother was sorry she birthed him. MrMickeysMom Jul 2012 #126
Unless you're a white, landed guy Cherchez la Femme Jul 2012 #64
Yes, but Scalia is considered a strict Constitutionalist justiceischeap Jul 2012 #68
I'm coming around to the same views. Always thought the constitution was the basis for democracy. robinlynne Jul 2012 #76
How did it "live" to make it apply to all men? Igel Jul 2012 #100
Then men have no right to a drug-induced erection! n/t woodsprite Jul 2012 #75
It would probably give fat Tony a heart attck anyway. smirkymonkey Jul 2012 #89
He probably enjoys it greatly get the red out Jul 2012 #103
he's out of his fucking mind warrior1 Jul 2012 #2
And we thought we'd dodged a bullet with Bork! hedda_foil Jul 2012 #16
This is surly the best reason to vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT. xtraxritical Jul 2012 #92
Scalia needs blood clot in the brain! Taverner Jul 2012 #3
That would imply Fat Tony has a brain, which he clearly does not. Suji to Seoul Jul 2012 #67
But Scalia thinks we have a right to own rocket launchers think Jul 2012 #4
Really not amazing; elleng Jul 2012 #5
The problem with "originalism," as I see it, is how it regards the Constitution in isolation TahitiNut Jul 2012 #69
Great Analysis; but this part, part caught my conspiratorial eye ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #77
While my scope was global but with examples/emphasis on US context, TahitiNut Jul 2012 #81
There is so much in this post that I agree with ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #86
I strongly suggest that you read the book I mentioned above, A Distant Mirror. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #112
Scalia has mentioned he views the Second as limited by the term "Bear". happyslug Jul 2012 #130
Great piece, nut, but elleng Jul 2012 #78
I rely upon Mussolini's own (alleged) definition of 'fascism' ... TahitiNut Jul 2012 #82
Without Constitutionally protected personal privacy, MsPithy Jul 2012 #84
The privatiztion of military power. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #111
As good as "Pillars of the Earth"?? TahitiNut Jul 2012 #124
A Distant Mirror is a much more difficult read. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #128
Women have no right to contraceptives but Americans have the right to own rocket launchers... Viva_Daddy Jul 2012 #6
When these zealots outlaw abortion they will outlaw birth control, viagra seems safe. sarcasmo Jul 2012 #13
????? heaven05 Jul 2012 #28
scalia's interpretation of the constitution is that he can vote however he damn pleases. unblock Jul 2012 #7
No, he doesn't, elleng Jul 2012 #10
originalism provides a convenient framework for justifying decisions that he comes up with first. unblock Jul 2012 #19
He can expand or limit his interpretation of originalism based on his personal goals. Kablooie Jul 2012 #22
exactly, thank you, much more concisely put :) unblock Jul 2012 #25
Beat me to it! Ikonoklast Jul 2012 #45
I am not arguing with you but I see things a bit differently Samantha Jul 2012 #36
Thanks. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #115
He thinks he's providing us a service when he deigns to explain savannah43 Jul 2012 #35
Besides, the Constitution insures freedom of religion and separation of church JDPriestly Jul 2012 #113
IMPEACH Fat Tony. Zoeisright Jul 2012 #8
I'll second that. smirkymonkey Jul 2012 #90
Without an underlying right to privacy, there IS no U.S. Constitution rocktivity Jul 2012 #9
With no right to privacy bucolic_frolic Jul 2012 #61
The argument doesn't follow. Igel Jul 2012 #104
You have a right to privacy with regard to your medical information. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #116
Republicans like that position on the Constitution becuase it allows slavery... rfranklin Jul 2012 #11
Serving his corporate overlords is all Scalia knows. sarcasmo Jul 2012 #12
I am anti-abortion, for one reason, BECAUSE we have the right to birth control. Th1onein Jul 2012 #15
except that LittleGirl Jul 2012 #34
Partial birth abortions .... Th1onein Jul 2012 #50
Go look up harlequin icthyosis and get back to us Occulus Jul 2012 #49
My son was borh with and died of cystic fibrosis Th1onein Jul 2012 #62
I am very sorry for your loss. MsPithy Jul 2012 #105
I think that you are mistaken; I understand perfectly what Scalia is saying, and I do not agree with Th1onein Jul 2012 #110
What if going through with the birth would assuredly lead to the deaths of both JDPriestly Jul 2012 #117
Obviously not. Of COURSE not. Th1onein Jul 2012 #140
What about rape? A woman should carry a rapist's baby? Arugula Latte Jul 2012 #53
Yes. Th1onein Jul 2012 #63
So no morning after pills for rape victims? msanthrope Jul 2012 #72
Absolutely morning after pills, for anyone who wants them, including rape victims. Th1onein Jul 2012 #83
No name calling. I agree. Let's suss this out, though.... msanthrope Jul 2012 #94
I'm not particularly into the idea of "ensoulment," whatever that is. Th1onein Jul 2012 #98
Well...you use the word, "viable." msanthrope Jul 2012 #102
Likely to be able to survive outside of the womb if brought to term. Th1onein Jul 2012 #109
But that avoids my question to you..should denial of the morning after pill msanthrope Jul 2012 #120
I didn't avoid your question. Th1onein Jul 2012 #123
Okay. What if doesn't work? msanthrope Jul 2012 #125
Then nature takes it's natural course. Th1onein Jul 2012 #134
Is that what you would counsel a cancer patient? Someone with MS? Biology is not destiny. msanthrope Jul 2012 #138
Of course not. Also, fighting cancer normally does not involve taking the life of another. Th1onein Jul 2012 #139
Unfortunately, there is no place for a person with a nuanced position, MsPithy Jul 2012 #95
"They" are going to have to compromise, and so is the other side. Th1onein Jul 2012 #99
Easy to make blanket statements _ed_ Jul 2012 #73
Are we going to talk about the issue, or talk about each other? Th1onein Jul 2012 #85
In the likely event that we have even more children dying of starvation JDPriestly Jul 2012 #118
I think that that is a muddying of the issues. Th1onein Jul 2012 #133
I am not muddying the waters. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #135
I absolutely disagree with you that it should be left to the individual Th1onein Jul 2012 #137
You should read O'Connor's decision in the Supreme Court case Casey. JDPriestly Aug 2012 #141
Reading this does not change my mind on the topic. Sorry. Th1onein Aug 2012 #142
Hopefully, the new health care law will give more women the confidence that JDPriestly Aug 2012 #143
Scalia's a politician in a robe. neverforget Jul 2012 #17
That asshole Scalia has absolutely NO RIGHTS to make decisions for my body LynneSin Jul 2012 #18
Politicians should have no decison making capabiliy regarding women's reproductive rights period. smirkymonkey Jul 2012 #91
The Griswold v. Connecticut decision was very convoluted. Kablooie Jul 2012 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #42
It's thin protection for Abortion, that's for sure. AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #65
That's his point. Igel Jul 2012 #106
The right to privacy is inferred. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #121
Good idea. JDPriestly Jul 2012 #119
Scalia Suggests? doohnibor Jul 2012 #21
I wouldn't recommend that last part with a guy who wants to procreate more of his sad self AllyCat Jul 2012 #47
If Romney were to get elected he would appoint judges like Scalia. libinnyandia Jul 2012 #23
And yet he has a right to be a douche. bleever Jul 2012 #24
And men have no "right" to sex, even though many of them think they do. KatyaR Jul 2012 #26
Scalia had to be on the Inquisition court in a past life lovuian Jul 2012 #27
Of course, he's an Opus Dei Fascist who has no respect for the Constitution. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #29
He would think that way as women think he has no right to sexual intercourse. savannah43 Jul 2012 #31
How the fuck did that asshole get a law degree? Myrina Jul 2012 #32
But I can own one of these nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #33
Yes, if you only use it to shoot at people Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #40
EWWW just thinking about it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #44
My toilet brush storage once was kind of portable too nolabels Jul 2012 #97
I'd call Scalia a fucking pig.... 47of74 Jul 2012 #37
The man is senile. crazylikafox Jul 2012 #38
Is anyone surprised? Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #39
Opus Dei Catholic HockeyMom Jul 2012 #41
He'd love to put Americans under a system of government.. 47of74 Jul 2012 #55
Scalia is a decision in search of an explanation. blkmusclmachine Jul 2012 #43
I really don't give a $hit what this creep has to say. AllyCat Jul 2012 #46
Fanculo voi ei vostri modi anti-donna, Scalia. sakabatou Jul 2012 #51
What a creepy person he is ... It is too powerful a position to be RKP5637 Jul 2012 #52
this guy Third Doctor Jul 2012 #56
Scalia: A subversive for the Vatican (Opus Dei)? Dawson Leery Jul 2012 #58
Well they have to keep their supply of white babies for the Catholic adoption racket. n/t progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #79
VagVamp #2 Bort336 Jul 2012 #59
So there's no right to marital privacy? bucolic_frolic Jul 2012 #60
After they Overturn Roe, The Next Move Will be Griswold v. Connecticut AndyTiedye Jul 2012 #66
Silly. Igel Jul 2012 #107
Of Course They Could do it All At Once Like That… AndyTiedye Jul 2012 #129
"... no generalized right to privacy ...." bucolic_frolic Jul 2012 #70
That makes little sense. Igel Jul 2012 #108
And Bloomburg is locking up baby formula in NY B2G Jul 2012 #71
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... primavera Jul 2012 #74
men have no right to have children..... Fresh_Start Jul 2012 #80
He might be using some constitutional-law definition for "right" 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #87
when ever his name is brought up i think of.... madrchsod Jul 2012 #88
Does the "legal genius" Scalia, realize he has just said he would uphold MsPithy Jul 2012 #93
This message was self-deleted by its author lark Jul 2012 #96
It isn't hard to understand why his wife doesn't want him in the house. Frustratedlady Jul 2012 #101
What is it the Republicans say about "activist judges?!" Rhiannon12866 Jul 2012 #114
Infant not considered alive until quickening (movements) in 1776. McCamy Taylor Jul 2012 #122
That was the rule of the Catholic Church (pre-1870) at the same time period happyslug Jul 2012 #131
Scalia is a good Smilo Jul 2012 #127
He is mentally deficient and-justice-for-all Jul 2012 #132
In other news, men have no right to sex. truthisfreedom Jul 2012 #136
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Scalia Suggests Women Hav...»Reply #104