Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
"If we list a set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others."
Do you believe in tautology?
There are two different sets of "rights" and much confusion abounds as a result. Philosophers like Rousseau talked about "natural rights"; Jefferson
et alii expounded on that theme in
The Declaration of Independence, which refers to "rights" that are not specified in the Constitution yet are a vital part of the American tradition.
On the other hand,
by definition, a "Constitutional right" is a right specifically provided in the Constitution.
To say that people have "no" rights other than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution is a problematic statement.
I would much prefer the Justices say "while there is no explicit right to [blah blah blah] in the Constitution, we believe that under [natural law / common agreement / well-established American tradition / common law / however you want to phrase it], [blah blah blah] is indeed also a human right" rather than go through ridiculous contortions to find something in the Constitution that doesn't appear there.
My statement is quite a bit different than what you posted. You are taking a thoughtful distinction, ignoring it, and then making up something different so that you can then ridicule this other thing you invented that I never said nor never would have agreed with.
By the way, the only "rights" that people generally agree upon are all intangible (except perhaps the right to own a gun).
NONE of the "rights" are to material well-being.
Do people have a "right" to a certain minimum amount of food? Well, suppose there is drought and blight and famine and not enough food to go around relative to this putative minimum "right" to food. Are you going to sue Mother Nature to reinstate additional food supplies? (this is not so fanciful, as from time to time there are more "water rights" to the Colorado River than there is water in the Colorado River, because the "rights" were set when it carried more water than it does now). There is no "right" to material well-being because there is no way to enforce that right by insisting that the natural world be different than it is.
PS if you were being sarcastic or making fun of someone else (I see your original post had quotations marks), and I misunderstood the object of your derision, I apologize.
