Quote:

Do you believe the Constitution is "a living breathing document" which evolves however liberals wish it to evolve? ("trees have rights!") Or do you belive it means what it actually says and the original intent does not change?

Would you agree that agree that Griswald was ridiculous and all the shit that followed it (including Roe) should be left to individual states? Moreover, do you think William O. Douglas was a leftist anti-Constitutional power grabber who should have been removed and imprisoned?



As I intend to run for public office, or perhaps accept nomination to the Supreme Court, I'm leery of having my comments here on the porno bulletin board coming back to haunt me. But here goes: In general, I support liberty and that means a general approval of personal privacy. (I'd prefer it to be established by statute, however, rather than imaginary emanations from the Constitution.)

Roe v. Wade was wrong, because it so casually disregards the interests of the actual human being whose life is to be forfeited. The rest of the Griswold line of cases doesn't bother me -- particularly the ones concerning the right to sodomy. I approve of sodomy. So no, I don't believe Douglas should have been jailed as an enemy of the Constitution. I do wish his opinions were more rigorously thought-out. But in my opinion, although our general politics do not agree on so many things (I don't get the idea that Douglas would have been a big Sarah Palin fan, as I am, and I certainly don't think trees and rivers should have legal standing), I agree with Justice Douglas that the objective of the Constitution is to get the government off people's backs.