Supreme Court: Texans Too Stupid To Rule State

Scrappleface.com ^ | 06/26/03 | Scott Ott

[Redbob]

That pretty much sums it up:
the SCOTUS thinks that any law THEY don't personally care for is "unConstitutional" - by inventing a Constitutional principle if necessary.

[Redbob]

"It's hard for me to believe they thought it was any of government's business."

It's hard for ME to believe they could not read.
The exact words are:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Amendment X

And what THAT means is that, for example, if the people of Texas do NOT wish to harbor perverts, child molesters, queers, or other such abominations, they are free to outlaw them.

Because there IS NO Constitutional right to "privacy".

[gcruse]

Because there IS NO Constitutional right to "privacy".

There is, however, a right to liberty.  And anything nonviolent
that two consenting adults elect to do in the privacy of their
own bedroom must be beyond the power of the state to
intervene.

, if the people of Texas do NOT wish to harbor perverts, child molesters, queers, or other such abominations, they are free to outlaw them.

.. The Georgia Supreme Court noted:

The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.

[Fiddlstix]

To: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Please Click Here
HaHaHa!