Santorum Right Again (The Liberal Agenda)

Thoughts of a Regular Guy ^ | 8/3/2006 | Paul, just this guy, you know

[miketheprof]

I seem to recall Senator Rick Santorum predicting this when the sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas was decided. He took quite a bit of flack for it, too (H/T: Drudge): It was probably not a defense the court had heard before.

A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.

[...] We're told by abortion advocates that 13 year-old-girls -- and younger -- can consent to an abortion. If that is granted, why should not boys of similar ages be able to consent to sodomy? Anybody? ...

[miketheprof]

He’s right – as a (in)famous radio talk show host likes to say, “Words mean things, and ideas have consequences.” We hear lots of arguments and counter-arguments about “slippery slopes.” I think it’s a bad metaphor. We haven’t crossed onto a muddy downhill grade we could fall down, which implies risk; we have broken a dam, which implies disaster. It’s not a question of “if we’re not careful, decision A might lead to decision B.” It’s much simpler and much worse than that. We have blown the dam that used to hold back the flood of wickedness. The downstream villages are swept away sequentially, and no amount of care or nuance will protect the next town from falling victim to the flood.

God promised he would never again destroy the world by flood. He never said he’d keep us from taking a shot at it ourselves.

[brooklyn dave]

I was jabbering to someone at FR about the Lawrence case. First of all, it should have never made it to the Supreme Court. The police were going on an anonymous tip who probably had something against the two dudes having sex, and the police were over zealous in enforcing a law that no one one bothers to enforce even though it might still be on the book (sodomy, unless it is in connection with another crime such as rape, assault, etc).
When you are speaking of Supreme Court decisons, you're not speaking of a simple judgement of the facts (as in lower courts)--it involves all kinds of theories, trains of thought, rationales, doctrines etc etc etc etc. So the slippery slope comment by Santorum was on the money. I thought Scalia made a similar comment in his dissent.

[TradicalRC]

Yup, he's a genuine conservative who's right, so he'll take all kinds of flak from so-called conservatives on certain political FoRums.

[cdcdawg]

The Lawrence case is a perfect example of how courts are good at certain things (and bad at others), and how legislatures are good at certain things. The untold story is that the executive branch dropped the ball on this case. PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION. The case should never have been tried. Sodomy laws should be stricken because of the impossibility of enforcement, and that is a legislative question. Unfortunately, we now rely on the courts for almost everything, whether they are good at it, or not.