And again, the framing of the fourth and fifth amendments seems to assume some expectation of freedom from government intervention.

Their jurisprudence usually amounts to the only privacy rights you have are the ones explicitly listed in those amendments, ninth amendment be damned.

If by “damned” you mean “interpreted according to our best guess at what its drafters intended,” then perhaps so. Bear in mind that even Griswold and Roe do not hold that there is a Ninth Amendment right to privacy generally, nor to abortion or birth control specifically.

I think “at all” is an overstatement

Perhaps “except where explicitly listed” would have been a better way of wording it. But “at all” is close enough for purposes of this discussion. Their jurisprudence usually amounts to the only privacy rights you have are the ones explicitly listed in those amendments, ninth amendment be damned.

IOW, given my druthers, I’d be BOTH pro-life (don’t kill the fetus) AND pro-choice (don’t make a woman carry an unwanted fetus in her body against her will).

I think that probably describes most of us, except for the extreme edges of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. In my perfect world, no woman would ever get pregnant unintentionally, no woman would ever face a health risk from a pregnancy, etc. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

I agree. I consider that a question about one’s judicial philosophy (“Will you apply the law, or the tenets of your religion?”) rather than the religion (“What are the tenets of your religion, which you shoudln’t be applying anyway?”). I guess I’d have to make an exception for any religion that specifically requires its adherents to apply their religion rather than secular law if appointed as judges.

Then again, I can sort of understand the idea that having one evangelical protestant Christian on the Court would not be a bad idea. Genuine diversity of thought may serve the court well, and diversity of religious background is one aspect of that. In that case the answer would be that it’s different from other religious tests in that the goal is religious diversity, which is different from requiring all government officials within a given branch to conform to some religious orthodoxy. Then again, if that really were the goal, I think a better case could be made for appointing an atheist.

TGirsch-9:

Fair enough, but we do still have a problem with anti-abortion judges. Rather than arguing that the right to privacy does not include the right to an abortion (which I can understand, even if I don’t agree with it), these justices generally argue that the right to privacy is not constitutionally protected at all (which I have problems with – but I don’t expect us to agree on this).

I think “at all” is an overstatement, i.e., all Justices would agree that certain privacy interests are protected by the Third Amendment, others by the Fourth, etc. However, many anti-Roe Justices would argue – correctly, IMO – that no part of the Constitution provides a general right to privacy.

On the abortion issue, just so I can understand, your position is that abortion is not protected by the federal constitution, and that regulation thereof should be left to the states, but that said states ought to keep abortion legal? I ask because you call yourself “pro-choice,” but much of your rhetoric sounds awfully similar to “pro-life” rhetoric.

That is correct, as to first-trimester abortions. If I sound pro-life it’s probably because we’re usually discussing either the constitutional issue, or late term / partial birth abortion, which I do oppose. If science, technology, cost, etc. ever make it realistic for women to have first-trimester fetuses removed intact rather than killed, then raised by someone else at their own expense with no further contact to their biological mothers, I’ll probably turn 100% pro-life then. IOW, given my druthers, I’d be BOTH pro-life (don’t kill the fetus) AND pro-choice (don’t make a woman carry an unwanted fetus in her body against her will).

If anti-abortion judges were running around claiming abortion was unconstitutional, then we’d have an equal and opposite problem in the opposite direction.

Fair enough, but we do still have a problem with anti-abortion judges. Rather than arguing that the right to privacy does not include the right to an abortion (which I can understand, even if I don’t agree with it), these justices generally argue that the right to privacy is not constitutionally protected at all (which I have problems with — but I don’t expect us to agree on this).

On the abortion issue, just so I can understand, your position is that abortion is not protected by the federal constitution, and that regulation thereof should be left to the states, but that said states ought to keep abortion legal? I ask because you call yourself “pro-choice,” but much of your rhetoric sounds awfully similar to “pro-life” rhetoric.

the main reason Robert Bork wasn’t confirmed is not anything he’s written about anything, but simply the fact that he looks like Herman Munster

The apearance certainly factored in, I’m not going to deny that, but I think that the main reason he wasn’t confirmed is because most people in the country — and the Senate — at the time simply thought he was nuts.

it’s not proper to question nominees about their religion.

This one’s tricky. They type of question about their religion is important in determining whether or not the question is appropriate. I don’t see anything at all inappropriate about asking a candidate whether s/he is willing and able to hold the law of the land (the Constitution) over personal religion if the two should ever be in conflict. Someone who cannot is unqualified, period, and I wouldn’t want to be precluded from asking the question.

Now if you start getting into nitty-gritty details about specific religious beliefs, I’d agree that this would be inappropriate.