Skip to comments.
Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court
Vanity
| 06/28/03
| shred
Posted on 06/28/2003 12:38:52 PM PDT by shred
I think there are many Freepers who are tired of this constant bashing of the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas. I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.
Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state. It disturbs me that there are so many who wanted to see the state prevail in its desire to regulate private, individual freedoms.
I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudiciary; activistsupremecourt; aganda; barfalert; blahblahblah; buhbye; conservatives; courtlegislation; dontletthedoorhityou; downourthroats; dusrupter; federalizeeverything; freedom; gay; gayagenda; homosexual; homosexualagenda; individualliberty; judicialfiat; lawrencevtexas; lessgovernment; liberty; moron; nakedpowergrab; peckerhead; readtheconstitution; samesexdisorder; strikeupthebanned; tenthamendmentdeath; thisaccountisbanned; troll; vikingkitties; wholecloth; whoneedsfederalism; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 341-348 next last
To: Between the Lines
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.
101
posted on
06/28/2003 2:56:17 PM PDT
by
RJCogburn
("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
To: Republican Wildcat
create new law and cultural standards via judicial fiatSC did not create a cultural standard, We...you, I and the rest of us....do that.
102
posted on
06/28/2003 2:59:41 PM PDT
by
RJCogburn
("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Shove it. Oh, I bet you'd like that, though.
To: dark_lord
"Lets see...I imagine you with a 10 gauge and...no, lets leave it there. :-)" You underestimate me. Let's leave it at that. :>)
To: shred
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.
To: muawiyah
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.
To: shred
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.
To: RJCogburn
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.
To: muawiyah
Here we are talking about the three pedophiles on the Supreme Court I suppose your source for that info is your hero 'Atomic Dork'.
109
posted on
06/28/2003 3:14:17 PM PDT
by
RJCogburn
("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
To: Scenic Sounds
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.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
"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?
To: eno_
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 . . . ."
To: Scenic Sounds
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.
To: colorado tanker
Adultery laws are not gone. It is a matter of equity. Marriage is a contract beween you, your spouse, and the State.
114
posted on
06/28/2003 3:26:38 PM PDT
by
djf
To: Kevin Curry
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.
To: Jeff Head
bump
116
posted on
06/28/2003 3:29:50 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
(The Gift is to See the Truth)
To: djf
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.
To: djf
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.
118
posted on
06/28/2003 3:32:33 PM PDT
by
RJCogburn
("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
To: colorado tanker
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?
119
posted on
06/28/2003 3:36:45 PM PDT
by
inquest
To: inquest
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 341-348 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson