Your input is requested...

In our recent and current Supreme Court appointment processes, I have observed and heard on several occasions the idea expressed (by minority and women's rights advocates), that rights ought to be continually expanded (unendingly, I guess) as an ongoing imperative of the Court.

The idea is only expressed in the most generic terms, and only by these groups.

I have been baffled as to what is meant by these groups, and how one (in the personage(s) of the Supreme Court) goes about "expanding" rights.

Whence do new rights arise?

By what process could a felt "need" for a new right be determined?

I'm sure you have a specific chomping block to bite down on and I am sure I am going to omit that here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new rights". as oppose to rights that should not have been denied to begin with. Why did it take an amendment to abolish slavery when the intention of the framers was clear "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Slaves were wrongly considered property and not "men".
I realise that there was a whole "birth of the nation" going on and ratifications from various states took time but it shouldn't have needed a specific amendment IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I'm sure you have a specific chomping block to bite down on and I am sure I am going to omit that here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new rights". as oppose to rights that should not have been denied to begin with. Why did it take an amendment to abolish slavery when the intention of the framers was clear "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" Slaves were wrongly considered property and not "men".
I realise that there was a whole "birth of the nation" going on and ratifications from various states took time but it shouldn't have needed a specific amendment IMO.

---

No "chomping block", but I'm sure several thoughts will be teased from my fertile mind as this thread gathers responses (IF it does :huh: ).

I'm am not sure what these groups meant by "new rights" either, that is why I have asked.

j it's just a straightforward attempt to gain political ground by those who are currently under attack from the reactionary occupants of the white house who see this period we are in now as a good time to take all of our rights away. i.e. property rights, privacy rights, free speech, ect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

j it's just a straightforward attempt to gain political ground by those who are currently under attack from the reactionary occupants of the white house who see this period we are in now as a good time to take all of our rights away. i.e. property rights, privacy rights, free speech, ect...

---

Really.

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

How come the ACLU (which presumes to speak for everyone :dry: ), isn't making any similar noises?

In any case, they spoke of "continually-expanding rights", not safe-guarding rights, or recovering lost rights.

If that had been their intent, that would have been how they worded their plaints, make no mistake.

youll have to wait now as my internet time is up:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

youll have to wait now as my internet time is up:(

---

Sorry to hear that, 'Slayer. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

j it's just a straightforward attempt to gain political ground by those who are currently under attack from the reactionary occupants of the white house who see this period we are in now as a good time to take all of our rights away. i.e. property rights, privacy rights, free speech, ect...

---

Really.

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

How come the ACLU (which presumes to speak for everyone :dry: ), isn't making any similar noises?

In any case, they spoke of "continually-expanding rights", not safe-guarding rights, or recovering lost rights.

If that had been their intent, that would have been how they worded their plaints, make no mistake.

---

Sighhhhh I'm sure wherever you heard this "expansion" there was an "expounding" on it. Let it out already.

vid did make a good point about slavery though. An amendment was added but what was already there should have covered it.

Wtf is "the Court" doing "expanding" rights anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Really.

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

How come the ACLU (which presumes to speak for everyone :dry: ), isn't making any similar noises?

In any case, they spoke of "continually-expanding rights", not safe-guarding rights, or recovering lost rights.

If that had been their intent, that would have been how they worded their plaints, make no mistake.

---

Sighhhhh I'm sure wherever you heard this "expansion" there was an "expounding" on it. Let it out already.

Wrong, Kemo Sabe.

As I told vid, I'm looking for answers-I'm not baiting a "trap".

vid did make a good point about slavery though. An amendment was added but what was already there should have covered it.

Quite right; a good point, but not at all relevant to the topic.

Wtf is "the Court" doing "expanding" rights anyway?

---

Another good question, precursive or coincidental to my own, but, hey-I asked first.

We can get to yours afterwards, or start another thread. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

So who speaks for white guys?

I don't recall any rulings that only affect women and/or minorities, do you?

---

Can you give an example of civil liberties denied to white guys?