Dick Durbin is a Sanctimonious Hypocrite

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Griswold v. Connecticut decision, in which the Supreme Court struck down a CT law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives.

Sen. Dick Durbin invoked Griswold when he took the floor of the Senate today to argue against federal appeals court nominee Janice Rogers Brown. Despite admitting that the "right to privacy" can not be found in the Constituiton, Durbin went on about religous intolerance, reproductive rights, state interference in morality, etc.

The core dishonesty is obvious. You can't exalt the privacy of the individual and wage a War on Drugs. You can't exalt the privacy of the individual and authorize the federal government unprecedented wire-tapping powers. You can't exalt the privacy of the individual and then force them to carry a national ID card to go anywhere. Where is the "religious tolerance" when much of our taxes are consumed in building government indoctrination centers for our children? What is Durbin's record on these issues?

The irony is that judges who are more likely to side with the state in Griswold, are also more likely to side with the individual in federal encroachments on liberty, as my previous two posts suggest. It is the conservatives who tried to put the breaks on tyranny in the Gonzalez v. Raich medical marijuana decision yesterday.

This is about power. All power must be located somewhere in the branches of the federal government, none in states or local communities - or individuals. This is Durbin's real philosophy.

As Sen. Brownback is saying right now, this is about enforcing what the Constitution has written, not what we wish is written.

I say this not out of defense of Justice Brown, with whom I'm unfamiliar. But the arguements for and against her make her look pretty good.