Roy Moore: Pedophile Pig

[Color Me Badd Fan]

That may be the direction the legal debate has gone, over the years, but I'm arguing outside of that perhaps just philosophically, I guess, that there is an implied right to privacy in the 4th amendment:

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.

To this day the idea in the UK and most other countries is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it? This was written in such a way to break from that tradition. Why? Because if you have nothing to hide, it's still not the "king's" business unless there is probable cause you're guilty of a real crime: that's a right to privacy.

The 4th Amendment disallows fishing expeditions and seeks to ensure the government stays within certain confines of behavior with relation to criminal investigation and prosecutions. It has nothing to do with a global right to privacy.

Substantive due process means that there are certain fundamental rights that can't be infringed on by the government without a very compelling rationale. The enactment of such a law violating a fundamental right, on its face, denies someone due process. It's the same legal doctrine that was used to legalize gay marriage. Again, it's not based in the 4th Amendment.

[Northwestcoug]

I am for mocking Canadians at every opportunity.

You say that now, but you'll be singing a different tune when you're trying to escape the country during Comrade Trump's 5th term.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I know I always refer to these guys, but I was listening to Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew this morning and they were talking about this. Drew had an observation that the 70s was a weird time regarding sexual permissiveness, though he was in no way excusing the behavior. I started watching Woody Allen's Manhattan a couple months ago and he's dating a 17 year-old at the beginning of the movie. Keep in mind, Allen's proclivities played no small role in Ronan Farrow bringing about the whole #metoo avalanche.

I also thought that as more evidence undoubtedly comes out Moore could just point out that Woody Allen was popularizing this behavior in the anything-goes 70s. I'm sure that would play well with the Alabama people.

[BlueK]

Cryptic doublespeak? He's talking about the Supreme Court disallowing prayer in school in one sentence and then in the next sentence he says "they then started creating rights in 1965." It's pretty clear he's talking about the Supreme Court again. Whenever "creation of constitutional rights" rhetoric is used, people are talking about the Supreme Court.

The 5th Amendment, particularly due process, is the basis for which a privacy right is found.

That may be the direction the legal debate has gone, over the years, but I'm arguing outside of that perhaps just philosophically, I guess, that there is a strongly implied right to privacy in the 4th amendment:

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.

To this day the idea in the UK and most other countries is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it? The founders were well familiar with that point of view but had this written in such a way to break from that tradition. Why? Because their at the time radical idea was that even if you have nothing to hide, it's still not the "king's" business unless there is probable cause you're guilty of a real crime. Along with the criminal defense implications, it's also a right to privacy.

[myboynoah]

I am for mocking Canadians at every opportunity.

Me too!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, it's funny when it's just Forrest Forrest Gump who is harmlessly Alabama dumb, but Trenton Garmon is sadly dangerously Alabama stupid.

I am for mocking Canadians at every opportunity.

[Omaha 680]

Embedded Tweet

This is the political narcissism I was talking about yesterday.

[myboynoah]

That's kind of funny.

Yeah, it's funny when it's just Forrest Forrest Gump who is harmlessly Alabama dumb, but Trenton Garmon is sadly dangerously Alabama stupid.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Ok, but the cryptic doublespeak is probably more effective to the type of audience he talks to then to directly take a strong stand against the right to privacy. By the way, doesn't the 4th amendment make a strong case to a right to privacy? I mean if the government doesn't have the right to search your "papers" without a warrant, isn't privacy kind of supported there? I'm not a lawyer, but that makes common sense to me.

Cryptic doublespeak? He's talking about the Supreme Court disallowing prayer in school in one sentence and then in the next sentence he says "they then started creating rights in 1965." It's pretty clear he's talking about the Supreme Court again. Whenever "creation of constitutional rights" rhetoric is used, people are talking about the Supreme Court.

The 5th Amendment, particularly due process, is the basis for which a privacy right is found.

[Uncle Ted]

Isn't he also accused of hiring underaged prostitutes?

The judge threw that out due to the lack of evidence.... https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...nocent-actions

But all the other senators and such should have asked him to step down based on that, I guess. Rumors of underage sex crimes should be enough assume a man is guilty until proven otherwise.

[BlueK]

I don't want to defend this idiot, but the overwhelming likelihood is that he's not talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which essentially just backed up clearly enumerated rights in the constitution. Usually when conservatives talk about this, particularly one who has been involved with the courts, they're talking about the invention of rights in Supreme Court cases. Griswold v. Connecticut, decided in 1965, held that there was a right to privacy which is not in the constitution. The notion of a right to privacy was used as grounds in Roe v. Wade.

Ok, but the cryptic doublespeak is probably more effective to the type of audience he talks to, then to directly take a strong stand against the right to privacy,which probably wouldn't go over that well with his fans if spelled out that way. Or why not just say "abortion" and everyone can agree. By the way, doesn't the 4th amendment make a strong case for a right to privacy? I mean if the government doesn't have the right to search your "papers" without a warrant, isn't privacy kind of supported there? I'm not a lawyer, but that makes common sense to me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Birds of a feather:

Embedded Tweet

Who's worse: Moore as a judge and potential senator, or his lawyer?

That's kind of funny.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Last night MSNBC played video of Moore speaking at his campaign rally where he complained about how the government invented "new" rights in 1965. Uh, yeah, nice white nationalist code for complaining at the Congress for declaring in legislation that black people actually have the right to vote.

I don't want to defend this idiot, but the overwhelming likelihood is that he's not talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which essentially just backed up clearly enumerated rights in the constitution. Usually when conservatives talk about this, particularly one who has been involved with the courts, they're talking about the invention of rights in Supreme Court cases. Griswold v. Connecticut, decided in 1965, held that there was a right to privacy which is not in the constitution. The notion of a right to privacy was used as grounds in Roe v. Wade.

edit-- I just watched the video and he talks about the Supreme Court "taking prayer out of school" in 1962. In the next sentence he says "they" then started creating new rights in 1965. Clearly he's talking about the Supreme Court decisions and not the 1965 Civil Rights Act.

[Northwestcoug]

Birds of a feather:

Embedded Tweet

Who's worse: Moore as a judge and potential senator, or his lawyer?

[old_gregg]

Embedded Tweet

double down of the century.