Did he knowingly appoint liberal justices to the supreme court or were they corrupted once inside?
Did he knowingly appoint liberal justices to the supreme court or were they corrupted once inside?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
They were corrupted by density.
No proof for the Battle of Stalingrad (Warfare = Density)
dunno all i know about america is
250 years
380 + million refugees
His judges were usually bullied into agreeing with racial bullshit. They were still staunchly conservative but the majority leftist judges openly hated them for not being radical reformists
still had many very far left judges appointed from previous presidents most notoriously William O. "Penumbra" Douglas.
new deal liberal judges were used to loosely interpreting the constitution when it came to "social welfare". That's all civil rights was, "social welfare". Nobody actually gave s hit about blacks they were just pondering if the welfare state wasn't benefitting them for some reason. That's why these early progressives, the same people that would have been for things like prohibition, voted for things like making birth control constitutional.
Also keep in mind a lot of the propaganda going around in the 60's was that the US government and its programs were infallible and close to creating a utopia, so making birth control a constitutional right through the supreme court was a "stepping stone" or something insignificant to what these liberal leftists thought as "the path to utopia". You had all sorts of government paid eggheads telling people that these things would "scientifically" create a better country, kind of the same vein of thinking as eugenics except its that the welfare state would automatically make everybody better people
The penumbra thing is not that much of a stretch. A right to privacy is implied looking at the 4th and keeping in mind the 9th.
right to privacy is completely made up
>t. Assblasted ex-Klansman
That's a very sophisticated argument.
>right to privacy is intrinsically linked to abortion, so trying to rationalize it by applying it to things other than abortion is a mistake
The "right to (marital) privacy" was formulated in the Griswold opinion. In Roe, the Griswold holding was extended to cover abortion.
>right to (marital) privacy
completely made up, there's no such thing as right to marital privacy. Once again it had to do with birth control, it has nothing to do with inherent rights, just the right to kill your children and take birth control in banned states.
Basically "you have a right to illegally abort your child in a state where it's banned because... uhh.."
>That's a very sophisticated argument.
It was a joke acusing you being Hugo Black's spooky ghost.
Okay, it actually *was* a sophisticated joke, then.
Right to privacy is more along the lines of "the state has no vested interest in what two gay dudes do in their bedroom."
it was made up "I can hire people to do illegal shit for me and you're not allowed to investigate because uh..."
Broken down, it means the state has no vested interest in outlawing things that do not present an obvious danger to public order and safety. As for abortion, that doesn't exactly fall under "right to privacy" for the simple reason that an abortion clinic is a publicly operated business and it can be regulated as any other business.
right to privacy is intrinsically linked to abortion, so trying to rationalize it by applying it to things other than abortion is a mistake
Right to privacy is intrinsically linked to murder. Why can't I slaughter libs? I'm not defending pro life I just want to kill libs.
That goes to birth control as well. Yes, access to contraceptives isn't a "right" and the state may regulate or ban the sale of them.
>The penumbra thing is not that much of a stretch.
Hypothetically, linguistically, you could say it's not a huge stretch. But as a practical matter it WAS a huge stretch -- it was a verbal excuse for constitutionalizing things that had no business being constitutionalized.
Alito absolutely deconstructed and wrecked Roe's bafflegab. The same could be done for Griswold v CT -- whose arguments are even weaker than those in Roe.
>A right to privacy is implied looking at the 4th and keeping in mind the 9th.
No, it's not. Not remotely.
Alito himself in his confirmation hearings said that the right of privacy is contained in the 4th.
That doesn't mean that a right to abortion follows from it, mind you.
It is indeed contained in the 4th within the meaning of the 4th -- which has nothing to do with abortion.
I never mentioned abortion, since it may contain two legal entities at a certain stage.
Mind you that the oral arguments for Roe hinged on the constitution saying "those persons born" or something literal.
>I never mentioned abortion
Well, you did mention abortion, actually (
) -- albeit along the same lines that I mentioned it -- i.e., the 4th amd is not particularly relevant.
>Mind you that the oral arguments for Roe hinged on the constitution saying "those persons born" or something literal.
That argument gets you as far as saying that there's no constitutional *prohibition* of abortion, but not that the constitution has an affirmative *right* to abortion. And nor is there any ground, or combination of arguments, in the constitution for making out such a right, as Alito very clearly and conclusively explained in Dobbs.
In this regard it is very telling that the dissent did not even *try* to defend the arguments in Roe that Alito had taken a wrecking ball to.
And there was the nut of the argument. The Bill of Rights never included the word "abortion." Only with a constitutional amendment could it be made so, and this would never happen as you won't get 2/3rds of the states to approve it. SJWs knew this too, they knew abortion would never be legalized nationally via legislation so they clung to Roe desperately for half a century.
I agree but again there might be a link to bodily autonomy somewhere, making abortion a right in certain cases like rape, since you are dealing with an albeit innocent intruder.
Abortion was also legal before the quickening in a lot of states.
Those are perfectly good arguments to make in state elections, and at the level of state legislatures, but I don't think that kind of argument rises to a level of a *constitutional* argument.
WIth that said, if you get the right personnel on the Court, I wouldn't be surprised if they accepted that kind of argument. And I wouldn't be surprised if, as a result of appointments by a Democrat president, the Court accepts hate law prohibitions of speech as consistent with the First Amendment, so we can - finally! - start putting Christians in jail for opposing gay marriage.
But in Texas v. Lawrence it can still count.
For the time being.
>Nixon appointed Warren E. Burger to replace Earl Warren, and during his time in office appointed three other members of the Supreme Court: Associate Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William Rehnquist.
Burger was a liberal, and as Chief Justice upheld many of the rulings of the very liberal Warren Court. Rehnquist was quite conservative, and played a significant role in helping to change the Court's ideological direction. Powell was generally conservative; not much of an impact, not a mover and a shaker. Blackmun of course (Roe v. Wade) was a disaster.
Nixon may have been fooled by Blackmun; I don't know the story there. But why would he appoint Burger? I'm not familiar with the politics of that decision -- and doubtless politics did contribute to it.
From those only Rehnquist dissented in Roe.
nigzon abboinded da burger :DDDDDD
How a person gets into power and how they wield power showcases their true nature.
He had a naive faith that the people who said they believed in the US constitution did
i'm sure Eisenhower also thought Earl Warren was trustworthy
Nixon was a liberal and probably didn't care. Some of the most left-wing lower-court judges in history were appointed by him.
No