Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court

Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

[RJCogburn]

If Lawrence was the law before the Clinton scandals, would he have been impeached and would we have ever known about Monica at all?

Of course.

[RJCogburn]

create new law and cultural standards via judicial fiat

SC did not create a cultural standard, We...you, I and the rest of us....do that.

[TommyDale]

Shove it. Oh, I bet you'd like that, though.

[TommyDale]

"Lets see...I imagine you with a 10 gauge and...no, lets leave it there. :-)"

You underestimate me. Let's leave it at that. :>)

[Kevin Curry]

In a few years, all the gnashing of teeth and wailing over this one will seem, in retrospect, to be much ado over nothing.

Just like Roe v. Wade.

As Stalin said, a single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.

Much ado about nothing indeed.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

If the city/county/state/feds can regulate what gays do, then they can regulate what married people do, all because some old biddy (or some red faced, middle aged guy, for that matter) thinks a private sex practice is "yucky".

Kinda like Alabama regulating vibrator sales - and don't try and tell me that there is any state interest in the method used by women to masturbate.

Further, I'd like each and every outraged person on this thread who has ever practiced sodomy in the marital bed to consider whether it would be any of my business, your business, or some cop's business to shut that down.

And one other thing - put up or shut up on whether any SC justice has ever practiced pedophilia.

[Scenic Sounds]

I just think that folks should make a choice. If we want the Supreme Court (via the 14th Amendment) to tell the states how to write their admissions policies for their schools, we shouldn't complain when the the Court uses the same amendment to tell the states how to write their criminal laws.

[Kevin Curry]

SCOTUS has prevented states that still had sodomy laws from upholding them as reflective of moral standards as legislated by duly elected state lawmakers. The immoral and dissolute in these states have been emboldened and strengthened; they will cause the descent into anti-family anomie to accelerate. So yes, SCOTUS has contributed in a big way to the slide.

[RJCogburn]

Here we are talking about the three pedophiles on the Supreme Court

I suppose your source for that info is your hero 'Atomic Dork'.

[puroresu]

Scenic, the problem with your analogy is that it was the "liberals" who made state college admission policies a matter of federal jurisdiction. They even enacted a federal law (1964 Civil Rights Act) which bans racial discrimination by government, which includes state universities. Then, when the opportunity arose to practice a form of racial discrimination they like, the "liberals" suddenly demanded that we ignore all those rulings and laws they've imposed the past 40 years.

If you want to make a case that ALL state colleges, and certainly private colleges, should be free from federal interference, you might have a point. However, "liberals" are wanting to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the feds to have jurisdiction over state colleges and even private colleges, EXCEPT when those colleges practice a form of discrimination they personally approve of. Then, they want to ignore their own laws.

It's the left, not the right, that's being inconsistent here.

[TommyDale]

"One was 14, one was 3 weeks past his 18th birthday."

So you acknowledge that one was a legal adult, and one was a child of 14. Are you saying you approve of man-boy relationships? Are you an active member of NAMBLA?

[colorado tanker]

I just don't see any distinction of gay sex from polyamorous sex under the Court's "fundamental right of humanity" or privacy or whatever they're going to call this new right of theirs. So, adultery laws are gone. I have no doubt state supreme courts will begin busily finding a "right" to gay marriage under this decision, as in Canada. All states will have to recognize those marriages under the full faith and credit clause. So, if marriage is no longer restricted to one man and one woman, by what principle will a court deny marriage to two men and a woman or two women and a man or whatever? There will be plenty of experts to testify that monogamy is "unnatural" and polyamorous people are "born" that way. "Paint your wagon and come along . . . ."

[AndyJackson]

We shouldn't complain when the the Court uses the same amendment to tell the states how to write their criminal laws.

The Supreme Court did not do that. They frequently tell the states, however, that some matter may not be criminalized, which is a different issue.

[djf]

Adultery laws are not gone. It is a matter of equity. Marriage is a contract beween you, your spouse, and the State.

[AndyJackson]

they will cause the descent into anti-family anomie to accelerate.

I fail to see how private sexual practices have anything much to do with the standing of my family in the community.

[TLBSHOW]

bump

[colorado tanker]

Are you sure? Breach of contract is not a crime. How can the state violate my fundamental right of humanity to do whatever I want behind closed doors by criminalizing adultery?

Justice O'Connor may think she can keep her finger in this dike, but remember dozens of state supreme courts are going to start running with this rationale and rulings are state constitutions are not reviewable in the SCOTUS.

[RJCogburn]

Marriage is a contract beween you, your spouse, and the State.

Which is a problem. It should be between the man on one hand, the woman on the other. Instead it is between the man and woman on the one hand and the state on the other.

[inquest]

All states will have to recognize those marriages under the full faith and credit clause.

That's not true unless Congress mandates it to be true. I mean, would a license to buy and sell firearms in Virginia be binding in Massachusetts?

[colorado tanker]

It's in the Constitution.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This is why you can get married in Nevada and it will be recognized in your home state.