Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.

US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

[Tall_Texan]

I'm convince that the Supreme Court has lost its moral authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States, not just from this decision, but from many recently where it seems the justices decide what answer they wish to give then look to the law and the Constitution only as justification for the already-decided opinion, rather than what justices *should* do which is to look first at the Constitution and the law and see what it directs.

IOW, the Court appears to be ack-bassword in the decision-making process and it explains why so many of their decisions appear to be political compromises rather than judicial interpretation.

It's truly a shame that the Court seems to embrace the "living Constitution" concept liberals have championed whether they care to admit it or not.

[Skywalk]

I don't know maybe I'm nutty, but THAT seems to be Scalia's argument.

People's property does not only include their car and house. It's also their own persons. They have a right to do what they will with them, with the exception of violating the same right of others.

Buggery does not violate my rights. Therefore it is not under the rightful jurisidiction of any government.

As for whether the state has infinite rights to make laws, just because it is partially sovereign...NOPE. Any law that does not conform to the supreme law of the land is invalid. Hello, if they made Jews wear the Star of David in Massachusetts, that doesn't make it a valid constitutional law.

If Scalia really is saying what it seems he is, he apparently has less understanding of the original intent of the Framers than I do. That's just sad.

[patton]

He has never read the freakin constitution, or he would have said,"We have no authority to rule on this.."

Find legal evidence to the contrary. I dare you.

I am sick to G_D of these frikkin' hypocrites.

IT IS THE LAW, not a polite suggestion.

[longtermmemmory]

Find out who the law clerks of these justices are. I will bet dollars to donuts the Justice's law clerks wrote the majority opinion(s). (would not be surprised if the writing clerk was a homosexual. Now THERE is a news scandal story. Does any news story have the fortitute to delve into that possiblity?)

[SevenDaysInMay]

SCOTUS rulings are so far beyond our Constitution limits on federal power that 5 justices are no longer in "good behavior". These rulings are just that because our representative republic would never expand federal powers like a cancer, colon cancer.

Congress must reign in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS to only matters of Constitutional law within the limits of our Constitution.

Our Constitution means what it says, not what some blackrobes purport society should be.

[Rodsomnia]

The judiciary is rife with homosexuals. The judge in my divorce was gay, there is even a gay judges association. What about that Souter guy?

[disenfranchised]

I've been what you call a "lurker" for a long time. But today I'm angry. VERY ANGRY! So I signed up so I can vent.

In it's decision today, the supreme court has, emphatically and unequivocally, said that the the moral perspective of bible-believing Christians is illegitimate for the making of law in the United States. In other words, MY VOTE DOESN'T COUNT!!!

I've been disenfranchised!

[Sci Fi Guy]

People are either sovereign over their bodies or they are not.

They're not! Never have been. The state passes all sort of laws to outlaw many things that we do with our bodies, prostitution, suicide, drug use, etc.

[buffyt]

Abortion on demand and sodomy is OK.

Things sure have changed since I grew up in the 1950s.

[Patangeles]

If Scalia really is saying what it seems he is, he apparently has less understanding of the original intent of the Framers than I do. That's just sad.

Yeah, the Framers were real big on buggery. That's why they included it in the Bill of Rights.

[longtermmemmory]

organ selling....

[longtermmemmory]

A tangent: A lawyer was telling the woman who wanted to wear her 1 inch cross necklac to get a job someplace other than with the school system which prohibited non-pc jewelry. Why didn't these same liberals tell the homosexuals to move to a pro-soddomy state like vermont? hypocracy.

[cookcounty]

" Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers"

If the Framers were in favor of allowing unnatural relations, how is it that none of them ever said anything against the anti-sodomy laws of their day? Obviously, it's today's SCOTUS majority decision that would have been abhorrent to the Framers.

[Skywalk]

So? That's my point isn't it?

Didn't it take a Constitutional AMENDMENT to bring about the Prohibition?

[jrushing]

State laws against bigamy,same-sex marriage,adult incest,prostitution,masturbation,adultery,fornication, bestiality,and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers ’ validation of laws based on moral choices.. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today ’s decision;the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
No more watching COPS on Saturday night when they sting prostitutes, or drug deals. Claim "consenting adults" and maybe you can get away with any crime!! Imagine 2 guys masturbating each other outside the school! They are in their car & are consenting adults. You can't touch this. Don't call the police.

[Skywalk]

That may or may not be true.

That does not mean that Scalia's OTHER decisions relating to law enforcement would not be abhorrent to them. I was very clear about what decisions I was talking about.

And yes, they would have found THOSE decisions abhorrent(at least most of them.)

[Skywalk]

Are you idiotic enough to think that the BoR is a "grant" of your rights?

They didn't include heterosexual oral sex in their either. Guess there's no right to eat white bread, because it's not in the BoR.

What a moronic argument.

[jrushing]

The state passes all sort of laws to outlaw many things that we do with our bodies, prostitution, suicide, drug use, etc.
All of that has been done away with! All It takes is consenting adults so said the SCOTUS.

[GOPcapitalist]

He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process.

Constitutionally, his argument is sound. The determination about the sodomy law is, properly speaking, not for the federal government to make or to impose. As with abortion, it is one that is properly determined in the legislatures and courts of the respective states. That typically means that some states will decide one way and some the other. To date, Texas' legislature has stood by the existing law and its courts have upheld it. That is not so in some other states, as is their respective right to determine. But by ruling as the court did in this case, they assumed the power of determining that particular policy into the federal government. For that reason, if nothing else, the ruling is an atrocity.

Man, this guy loves the State.

For opposing the assumption of another power by the federal government? Your reasoning is bizarre.

[steplock]

To ALL of you who are pontificating that the state has NO RIGHT to control DEVIANT behavior....

Remember this: What is the MAIN means of AIDS transfer in the Western World? Homosexuality.

If anyone in this country had any guts back even before Reagan (including Reagan) the AIDS epidemic could have been halted in its tracks in the Western World (RACIST!!)

It could have been halted in Africa also by the same means. But there is someone (plural) who does NOT wish to see AIDS halted.

AIDS/SARS/etc. etc being the antibiotic resistant pneumonias and other virus that are prolific in the HOMOSEXUAL communities and parts of Africa and the Caribe.

This SC decision is onl the start of the deviancy epidemic that WILL include pedophilia, bestiality, and the rest of the ANTI-HUMAN practices of the (The only word that describes it accurately) EVIL!