Janice Brown: no right to privacy under the US Constitution

When Leahy asked her whether a citizen has a right to privacy under the Constitution, she said "no, there is not". It was in reference to a concern of Leahy's whether parents have the privacy to raise their child in their home.

Also, she mentioned Kasky vs. Nike where "Commerical Free Speech should be modernized for this society". That was kind of shocking.

I think it is an understanding thing but do not feel like trying to read it to day. The other I do not understand.

She just said that the right to privacy is not mentioned in the US Constitution. She is a Black Female Republican to the DC Court of Appeals.

In regards to the Commercial Free Speech, that is important because a company can blatantly lie to a consumer and say that it is protected under free speech. For example, Nike told a bunch of universities across the nation that it didn't have any sweatshops. They said they were protected under commercial free speech.

I don't know how it plays out, but I know commerical free speech also deals with what happened during the slavery or Jim Crow days.

This is getting good.

an "implied" right, under the fourth amendment, which prohibits unlawful search and seizure. It says that the "government" must show just cause before a judge and obtain a warrant stating what is being looked for in order to violate the privacy of your home.




edit:


Here it is:


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.






second edit :


There could also be an argument made for a "right to privacy" based on the ninth and tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights:


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I can't see any other way to interpret it personally.

The 4th amendment only says that the government can only intrude on your privacy under "reasonable" circumstances. Contrast that to the right to trial by jury or the right to practice religion which are absolute.

People may not like Ms. Brown's answer but it was correct.

it's baaaaaaccckkkk!
Let's hope the same thing happens to her as to Bork.

we controlled the Senate when we threw Bork out on his ass.

I fear that through filibustering judicial nominees we have unleashed a vicious cycle, and I fear that when a yet to be named Democrat becomes President next year, he will get zero judicial nominees through the Senate.

That's only 2% of the 163 approved. On the other hand, under President Clinton, Republicans blocked 167 of Clinton's nominees and approved 377, making it a total of 20% turned down. You can't say the Dems started this vicious cycle.

there is a difference between not approving nominees when you are in the majority, and filibustering when you are in the minority. If we win the presidency and the Senate, like I think we will next year, the Republicans will be still be in a spot to filibuster all of our judicial nominees.

The Republicans have been filibustering Democratic nominees for years. The difference is that, since they controlled the Judiciary Committee, they just made sure that no one got a hearing. That avoided the difficult situation of having to have the entire Republican caucus engage in filibuster on the floor. But the effect was the same.

The Constitution does NOT grant us rights - we already HAVE rights, simply by being alive, and the Constitution is there to subdue the government from oppressing these natural rights, NOT to grant us our rights!

arguments. Tricky, especially when someone rings in the Bible or the Havamal or something as the source of "natural law."

When you read the Constitution, it says "Congress shall make no law" for the opening of the 1st Amendment, not "The people are given". That and also there is the 9th Amendment which protects rights that are not specifically unnumerated in the Constitution. And in case she forgot, there are also more than a few SCOTUS cases that affirm such a right exists.

Unfortunately, if all of the Republicans vote for her - and they no doubt will - the Democrats can't stop her from getting out of Committee. But if the Committee Democrats stick together, that may give the rest of the Democrats the backbone to try to stop her on the floor.

Who said that there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats? Oh, yes - I remember.

Thanks, Ralph. You were such a BIG help.

1) Scalia proclaiming that the Constitution does not mention "suffrage" while conveniently overlooking the fact that there are a multitude of Articles and Amendments devoted to VOTING RIGHTS

2) Bu$h proclaiming that he did not use the world "imminent" when describing the "threat" posed by Iraq, even though he was doing everything in his power to convey that impression

3) The current dumbass splitting hairs over the word "privacy" not specificially being mentioned in the Constitution, when in effect the 4th Amendment was added to protect the privacy of citizens.