Supreme Court: Texans Too Stupid To Rule State

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

[socal_parrot]

(2003-06-26) -- In a little noticed addendum to today's Lawrence and Garner v. Texas decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the citizens of Texas are not intelligent enough to rule their own state.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted, "Representative government is a good notion as far as it goes. But the citizens of Texas clearly lack the mental ability to elect representatives and make laws properly. We'll be keeping eye on them to protect them from themselves."

Justice Kennedy also wrote that "citizens of many other states probably lack the intellectual capacity to rule themselves as well, which is why the Supreme Court exists, and why none of us can afford to retire. Imagine what would become of this nation without our sovereign rule."

[socal_parrot]

A little SATIRE from Scrappleface.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Was 'sodomy' defined/described anywhere in the Texas statute or in SCOTUS rule?

[My2Cents]

Not too far from the realm of possibility. I'm sure the Supreme Justices could justify such a decision to protect the people of Texas "in their spatial and more transcendent dimensions" (words directly out of Kennedy's decision on the Texas sodomy law).

[m1911]

Actually, "deviant sexual conduct with another individual of the same sex" was the charge. Sodomy by any other name...

[socal_parrot]

I'm not quite sure if the Texas law related to a wide range of sexual acts or just to gay sex. The way folks around here are talking about this ruling legalizing incest and sex with children and other deviant acts, I would think that the Texas law covered a broad array of acts.

[m1911]

Oops, hit post too soon:

The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

"(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

"(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." §21.01(1).

[m1911]

Only with "another individual of the same sex". So check your sheep's equipment BEFORE the date to stay on the right side of Texas law. :)

[You Dirty Rats]

Also, Texans need to listen to Euros on how to run their state. Kennedy gave more weight to the European Court on Human Rights in his opinion than to the State of Texas.

(That isn't satire; that's direct from the Opinion).

[m1911]

Children can't give consent. A search of the decision matches "consent" 21 times, so at first glance it would appear to be a major requirement for the Court.

[gdani]

I'm unfamiliar with Scrappleface but I wonder how they feel about states that try to pass their own laws -- and are later rebuffed by the Feds -- when it comes to:

* Medicinal marijuana
* Assisted suicide
* Partial-birth abortion
* Gay marriage

and so on.

I ask only because the people who seem to be screaming the loudest about states' rights are the same ones who want the Feds to do something about some/any of the above issues -- contrary to what the state is trying to do for itself.

[Freebird Forever]

Reading between the lines, I'd say that the ruling shows six of the supreme court justices are far too immoral to rightfully hold their positions.

Impeach them first, then stone 'um.

[m1911]

But those are general welfare issues where there is a compelling interest of the Federal Government to intervene. After all, they affect interstate commerce.

Oh man, I crack me up.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

"(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or

"(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." §21.01(1).

Hmm... two remarks:

By (then) existing Texas law, Clinton DID have sex with Monica and...

THEY DIDN'T COVER (LIVE) GERBILS!!!!!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Imagine what would become of this nation without our sovereign rule.

Yeah, it might become a Republic again, Heaven forbid!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

"in their spatial and more transcendent dimensions" (words directly out of Kennedy's decision on the Texas sodomy law).

Well, NOW we know which Supreme Court justice has been tokin' on the bong and lickin' the postage stamps! I bet his wife makes great brownies!

[m1911]

Depends on the sex of the gerbil. If you and the gerbil have a matching number of X chromosomes, it's a $200 fine for you, bucko!

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

You mean... gerbils are... persons?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

LAlso, Texans need to listen to Euros on how to run their state. Kennedy gave more weight to the European Court on Human Rights in his opinion than to the State of Texas.

(That isn't satire; that's direct from the Opinion).

Puffffffffffffffffffffffffff..............

[m1911]

LOL - depends on whether the judge is a member of PETA, I suppose :)

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I suspect the Ninth Amendment could cover right to life, thus empowering those who swore an oath to the Constitution to pass a partial-birth abortion law.