Replies

The process used in arriving at this ruling is worse than the result.

Mr Justice Kennedy, for the Court:

"These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex".

So now, the Court claims the right to rule by discerning "emerging awareness" on the part of the population.

No need for voting, no need to listen to those selected through voting, no means to question the justice's perception of "emerging awareness" - if the laws passed by the People do NOT reflect "emerging awareness" what else can possibly do so?

The power to issue rulings based on a justice's discernment of "emerging awareness" is exactly the power claimed by the French revolutionaries to rule in the name of the General Will.

It is pure despotism, and it doesn't matter if they use the power to outlaw sodomy or to require it.

The consequences to a Free Republic are the same.

"These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex".

So now, the Court claims the right to rule by discerning "emerging awareness" on the part of the population.

They have now proclaimed themselves to be the Delphic Branch of the federal government.
Why stop at "emerging awareness?" What's to stop the SCOTUS from basing a ruling on a nascent, "pre-emergent awareness?" Self-fulfilling prophecy is a great racket, if you can just predict what President and Senate would be fools enough to nominate and confirm you.

"The power to issue rulings based on a justice's discernment of 'emerging awareness' [Justice Kennedy, for the Court] is exactly the power claimed by the French revolutionaries to rule in the name of the General Will.

It is PURE DESPOTISM [emphasis added] and it doesn't matter if they use the power to outlaw sodomy or to recquire it."

We now live under a tyrannical regime; probably made worse by the fact that the tyranny will, at first, be "soft."

If the past is any guide, and it is, our future will be truly terrible.

Mr Justice Kennedy, for the Court: "These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex".

This is much more worse than using the argument of privacy. At least about the privacy many people who still want to adhere to the rules of morality, can agree that policing peoples bedrooms is not a good thing.

But when the issue is defined in the context of liberty - the vices (probably others are in the queue) acquire the ultimate protection - even to be publicly displayed, to be celebrated and promoted by the state. The liberty itself gets redefined as a licence.

Other quote from Kennedy's statement:
"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." ( AP, Sat, Jun 28, 2003, by Anne Gearan

"Full right to engage in their conduct" without limits of privacy?