Privacy and Freedom

[gounion]

Glenn tells us that if the Dems take over, they will destroy the nation. Under Dems, we won't have any freedom.

Of course, history tells us quite differently. FDR saved our nation from revolution, and remade our rights and our economy and won a world war, all against the tide of what the GOP wanted. Even Eisenhower, a nominally Republican President, was an FDR adherent. He supported FDR concepts like labor rights.

However, one of FDR's grave mistakes was not extending those rights to blacks and minorities. That was extended to the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WW2.

There is a public sphere and a private sphere. The public sphere, where we do business and organize together, is what must be regulated. The economy and business must have rules that everyone abides by. Business should not have human rights under the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has given them that.

But there is the private sphere. What people do in their private lives. Like most Democrats, progressives, liberals, whatever you wish to call us - I accept all these titles (though the one I embrace the most is the title of Trade Unionist), I strongly believe the most important right as an American is to live my personal life as I chose. Inside my home, and who I live with and who I love is not the government's business. Also, I have the right to my own body and personal decisions thereof.

The only caveat there should be is that it is among consenting adults. The state has the duty to protect children and adult who do not consent. There goes the right to own slaves, which I think many conservatives still want to have.

I believe there is an inherit right in the Constitution for the right to privacy. The word meant different things when the document was written, but the Founding Fathers did not believe the government had the right to go into a person's home and regulate their lives there.

But the GOP and the right does NOT believe there is a right to privacy. They believe the government can tell you who you can marry, who you can love, what consenting adults you can have sex with, make your medical decisions for you (yes, even whether to sterilize you against your will or not), whether you can legally buy contraceptives or not (even if you are married, so they're making the decision for you in procreation, too), and even what race of person you can marry.

They are against each and every case in this nation that was decided based upon the concept that you have a right to privacy in this nation.

And that's where the battle lines are drawn. The right to privacy is the right I'm fighting for.

As the old labor anthem laments, which side are YOU on?

[carmenjonze]

These control freaks have a problem with privacy because they don’t believe in personal and physical autonomy for anyone but their own colonizer selves.

Just themselves. That’s it. And like the colonizers that came before them, the government is supposed to facilitate these conditions for them.

Not their wives, not their children, not other people’s 15 year olds, not people seeking health care, not married people using contraception.

Glennfs thinks regulatory arbitrary waiting periods imposed by the state on abortion seekers is a good idea. But these f’ers already know that they can’t stop abortion and that abortion laws ARE the regulations, so that a doctor can do it instead of it being self-induced.

Not only do these authoritarians not care about deaths from self-induced procedures, they need the punitive power of the government to punish women for them, since they can’t do so on a mass scale, themselves.

[ProfX]

Again, the Founders lived in a time where there were no telephones, and nobody could tap a telephone as it didn't exist. Privacy is not such a big deal if you are some member of the landed gentry living on a rural estate, and your nearest neighbors are miles away. There is widespread electronic surveillance of most of your life these days, and I'm not sure gun stores are where you will run into the most. Data is being collected on Americans and being resold by data brokers - now of who goes to PPs, as I just posted.

Griswold is a big linchpin and was cited as the basis of Roe. If they go for Griswold next, it will not just endanger the right to contraception ... though that will be the first thing to fall. But what's really important in Griswold, and we know from past judicial writings of Alito he doesn't like it ... is that while it notes there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, many parts of it (notably the 4th amendment) imply one. You know, that "living Constitution" stuff.

My point being - you are absolutely right - if Griswold is the next domino to fall, then many of our rights to privacy are in jeopardy. Not just reproductive freedom and autonomy.

[marindem01]

As it stands right now, the political party that is a threat to individual freedom is the Republican Party.

Privacy....yes our privacy is at risk. But let's remember this. As the Republican's howl and bay at the moon over the Violation of Privacy at the Supremem Court, the banning of abortion is take away a Woman's Right To Privacy, to decide for herself after speaking with her primary care doctor or OBGYN, in the privacy of that doctor's office regarding her own reproductive health care.

Republicans are actively working the suppress (deny the freedom) the right to vote.

It is Republicans who have gone door-to-door to find how a person voted in the 2020 General Election.

It was Republicans who staged a Coup in an attempt to install a President for Life, so talking about Democrats taking away freedoms is so much hot air.

Wearing mask to prevent the transmission of COVID is NOT a loss of personal freedom.

The Troll is parroting the talking points of the day he is given. That is all he is doing.

[gounion]

The Democratic Party should introduce and campaign on amending the Constitution to provide a right to privacy.

Let the right fight it.

[JoeMemphis]

The Democratic Party should introduce and campaign on amending the Constitution to provide a right to privacy.

Let the right fight it.

I agree. That's democracy.

[gounion]

I agree. That's democracy.

Every Republican will oppose it. Your side isn't interested in democracy. They want to control everyone - including their sex lives.

[Bludogdem]

Don’t need an amendment.

9th amendment
“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This give congress the power to legislate things like privacy, abortion rights, same sex marriage, etc.

Democratic Party needs to abandon stupid ideas like “wealth tax” and focus on a narrower set of principles like privacy rights. Guaranteed winner with independent voters and a lot repub women.

Overturning Roe is going to create some intersecting alliances and opportunities.

[gounion]

Don’t need an amendment.

9th amendment
“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This give congress the power to legislate things like privacy, abortion rights, same sex marriage, etc.

Democratic Party needs to abandon stupid ideas like “wealth tax” and focus on a narrower set of principles like privacy rights. Guaranteed winner with independent voters and a lot repub women.

Overturning Roe is going to create some intersecting alliances and opportunities.

You need an amendment when six Justices says there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

[JoeMemphis]

Every Republican will oppose it. Your side isn't interested in democracy. They want to control everyone - including their sex lives.

I just said I was interested in democracy. Voting on an amendment is democracy. You seem to only be interested in democracy when it turns out the way you want. That's not democracy.

[JoeMemphis]

You need an amendment when six Justices says there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

You need an amendment to amend the constitution. I think BD's point is that you don't need an amendment to pass a law that would codify Roe.

[gounion]

I just said I was interested in democracy. Voting on an amendment is democracy. You seem to only be interested in democracy when it turns out the way you want. That's not democracy.

Polls show Americans want to keep a Constitutional right to abortion by a two-to-one margin. Yet everyone you've been voting for, for years, wants to take that right away. They want the Supreme Court to do it, against the wishes of most Americans.

Do you believe that the government has the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry a baby, even if she may die from doing so (and yes, 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and the woman can die if she doesn't abort.

Whose decision should it be whether a woman carries a baby to term or not? The police? Or a woman and her doctor?

[gounion]

You need an amendment to amend the constitution. I think BD's point is that you don't need an amendment to pass a law that would codify Roe.

The Supreme Court can knock down any law it doesn't like.

[Glennfs]

Keep in mind I do not believe that is their intention. But, I do believe that will be the result if progressives ever get unfettered power.
Biden tried to increase spending by 6 trillion dollars and I do not know of even one progressive who opposed the plan.

[gounion]

Keep in mind I do not believe that is their intention. But, I do believe that will be the result if progressives ever get unfettered power.
Biden tried to increase spending by 6 trillion dollars and I do not know of even one progressive who opposed the plan.

Let's just remember how much Reagan increased spending while cutting taxes. Oh, but that was okay...

Well, you're getting your way now. You guys are in charge. The Supreme Court can do anything it wants. Congratulations.

[Glennfs]

Let's just remember how much Reagan increased spending while cutting taxes. Oh, but that was okay...

Well, you're getting your way now. You guys are in charge. The Supreme Court can do anything it wants. Congratulations.

Under Reagan revenue went from 600B to 991B
Spending went from 678B to 1.1T

Yes that is exactly the same and the equivalent of Biden wanting to increase spending by 6 trillion

[gounion]

Under Reagan revenue went from 600B to 991B
Spending went from 678B to 1.1T

Yes that is exactly the same and the equivalent of Biden wanting to increase spending by 6 trillion

I guess Biden should have cut taxes by half too, then the same thing would happen for him, right?

What did the deficit go to during Reagan?

And let's remember that Reagan RAISED taxes.

[JoeMemphis]

Polls show Americans want to keep a Constitutional right to abortion by a two-to-one margin. Yet everyone you've been voting for, for years, wants to take that right away. They want the Supreme Court to do it, against the wishes of most Americans.

Do you believe that the government has the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry a baby, even if she may die from doing so (and yes, 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and the woman can die if she doesn't abort.

Whose decision should it be whether a woman carries a baby to term or not? The police? Or a woman and her doctor?

I have stated before that I have no problem with Roe. I understand the issues with the original decision but I didn’t think it would be completely reversed after 50 years.

The court as I understand it should give no weight to polling data. It’s up to the legislature and the executive to do the people will. It’s the courts job to follow the law. As I understand the decision it is based largely on the notion that the right to have an abortion isn’t a constitutional right. The legislature along with the executive can pass legislation to grant such rights if it chooses.

This decision as drafted did not mandate that a woman must carry a baby to term. It merely returns the decision to the state. States can pass legislation that reflects the values of the majority of people in the state as long as that does not violate the US Constitution or the respective state constitution. In most states that are largely pro life, abortion is already severely restricted via regulation. In states that are largely pro choice, the laws will probably remain pretty much the same.

As you know I am not much into mandates. Where were these folks who were so concerned about personal liberty when we were being told what to wear, who could go to work and who was non essential, who could operate their business and who had to shut down, who had to get vaccinated in order to work. There are doctors out there who didn’t recommend vaccines and yet the folks in DC didn’t give a crap about what the individual and that doctor thought.

So forgive me if I think so much of this gnashing of teeth over personal liberty by those people who supported every restrictive policy and every mandate is just manufacturer outrage. You either believe in personal liberty or you don’t.

[JoeMemphis]

The Supreme Court can knock down any law it doesn't like.

I’ve heard all that before. It’s not how it works. It’s just a talking point. Fear mongering.

[gounion]

I have stated before that I have no problem with Roe. I understand the issues with the original decision but I didn’t think it would be completely reversed after 50 years.

The court as I understand it should give no weight to polling data. It’s up to the legislature and the executive to do the people will. It’s the courts job to follow the law. As I understand the decision it is based largely on the notion that the right to have an abortion isn’t a constitutional right. The legislature along with the executive can pass legislation to grant such rights if it chooses.

This decision as drafted did not mandate that a woman must carry a baby to term. It merely returns the decision to the state. States can pass legislation that reflects the values of the majority of people in the state as long as that does not violate the US Constitution or the respective state constitution. In most states that are largely pro life, abortion is already severely restricted via regulation. In states that are largely pro choice, the laws will probably remain pretty much the same.

As you know I am not much into mandates. Where were these folks who were so concerned about personal liberty when we were being told what to wear, who could go to work and who was non essential, who could operate their business and who had to shut down, who had to get vaccinated in order to work. There are doctors out there who didn’t recommend vaccines and yet the folks in DC didn’t give a crap about what the individual and that doctor thought.

So forgive me if I think so much of this gnashing of teeth over personal liberty by those people who supported every restrictive policy and every mandate is just manufacturer outrage. You either believe in personal liberty or you don’t.

Bullshit. Abortion will be illegal in many states as soon as Roe is released. But you'll ignore that, won't you?

You don't give a shit for personal liberty, you just pretend.

You've proven with this post the only "liberty" you're concerned about is the liberty of corporations, not people.

[gounion]

I’ve heard all that before. It’s not how it works. It’s just a talking point. Fear mongering.

The proof is in the pudding. The Supreme Court is just getting started. If you read Alito's opinion, it sets up everything else to get knocked down, because he denies the concept of the right of privacy in the Constitution.

[JoeMemphis]

Bullshit. Abortion will be illegal in many states as soon as Roe is released. But you'll ignore that, won't you?

You don't give a shit for personal liberty, you just pretend.

You've proven with this post the only "liberty" you're concerned about is the liberty of corporations, not people.

I’m not ignoring it. I acknowledge it. States that are now prolife and heavily regulate abortion, will continue to heavily regulate abortion. Some may very well ban abortion. States like CA probably won’t change a thing. I imagine that the states that have current policies somewhere in the middle will continue as they are.

You don’t give a shit for personal liberty. You favored every restrictive policy during the pandemic despite what it did the people, their businesses and their families. You never met a mandate you didn’t like or support. You didn’t give a shot what the individual and their doctor thought at the time. You were getting your marching orders not from 9 justices but from a single non elected bureaucrat named Fauci. You couldn’t wipe your ass without his permission. So don’t go trying to tell me how much you’re concerned about civil liberties when you ignore civil liberties when it suits you. You are just manufacturing outrage because the polls you are so concerned about aren’t trending your way and you fear loss of control in Congress. I expect you’ll blame somebody else for that as well. Typical.

[gounion]

I’m not ignoring it. I acknowledge it. States that are now prolife and heavily regulate abortion, will continue to heavily regulate abortion. Some may very well ban abortion. States like CA probably won’t change a thing. I imagine that the states that have current policies somewhere in the middle will continue as they are.

You don’t give a shit for personal liberty. You favored every restrictive policy during the pandemic despite what it did the people, their businesses and their families. You never met a mandate you didn’t like or support. You didn’t give a shot what the individual and their doctor thought at the time. You were getting your marching orders not from 9 justices but from a single non elected bureaucrat named Fauci. You couldn’t wipe your ass without his permission. So don’t go trying to tell me how much you’re concerned about civil liberties when you ignore civil liberties when it suits you. You are just manufacturing outrage because the polls you are so concerned about aren’t trending your way and you fear loss of control in Congress. I expect you’ll blame somebody else for that as well. Typical.

This is the difference between the private sphere and the public sphere.

What you do in public can and should, to some degree, be regulated. You would say that someone coming here that had Ebola, a highly-contagious disease that will almost certainly kill anyone who gets it, should be allowed to travel anywhere and spread disease and death. That's how idiot conservatives think. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM!

But I never suggested people should be forced to wear masks in their home.

But one million dead just wasn't enough for you, was it?

I think whether a woman gets an abortion is between her and her doctor, not a judge. I think people should be able to love and marry who they want (consenting adults) without you fucking Republicans telling them they can't.

Because Obergefell is next. Three sitting judges were among the four that voted NO on the right of gays to be married, and now they have three more to join them on that vote.

And you'll be shocked - SHOCKED! - when that happens just like you're shocked - SCHOCKED! - when this happened.

And you really expect us to believe you. Jeesh.

[marindem01]

What the Troll does not mention is that it took 8-Years of the Clinton/Gore Administration to cut the deficit created by RayGun and Bush.

The Traitor increased the deficit as well, Mr. Biden is cutting the deficit and reducing inflation. All the Ronnie God is increase the deficit, just like he did to California.

[ProfX]

Liberty is just a slogan. We all know we have government because our freedom is not unlimited. I do not have the freedom or liberty to bomb your house or send your kids into orbit. I hate leaving things at the level of slogans. It's definitely true that conservatives and liberals have different ideas of liberty and freedom. I know that. It's why we've got political debate. I believe they just disagree over what kinds of freedom and liberty are most important (individual/personal vs. economic/business) -- also I agree with GoU's division of regulations and laws more important for public sphere than private sphere.)

No, I do not support the right to do whatever you feel like during an epidemic or pandemic, because more than just your life is at stake. Other Americans' lives could be affected.

This much I agree: there's no need to amend the Constitution. The implied right to privacy is described in Griswold. That MIGHT be next, but they haven't overturned it yet. Nor even announced a plan to.

I do agree with Warren it is time to codify Roe into federal, Congressional law. Yes, they tried before in 2021, met its end in 2022 with the Senate filibuster. Once again, we need to roadmap our strategy, and know the obstacles ahead.

There are 13 states right now that have trigger laws that are quite explicit. They say the moment Roe is overturned, the state will ban all abortions. No exceptions. It won't be regulated or limited. It will be banned. And, in some cases, it seems some like LA. will actually charge women having abortions with crimes, and this is the key problem, some legislators want to punish women who leave their states to have them elsewhere.