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.
I suggest people take the gays out of the equation and rethink this.
The view may well change.
Sorry about your loss. I worry so much about my family.
Sorry about your loss. I worry so much about my family.
Unconstitutional "now" - as opposed to before? What would have changed to make them unconstitutional now?
Interesting question.
I believe it is due to a gradual change in what should be punished in regard to personal behavior.
Cal it shifting social moray or whatever.
We have come a long way since the Salem trials. Many seem to think too far. In some ways I believe we have.
If you missed the Lawerence situation, the minor in the case was actually confined by the State and could not, in any manner, give consent, to say nothing of informed consent.
An honest person would have to conclude that David Souter is soft on pedophilia, and most such folk are, in fact, pedophiles themselves. Justice Ginsburg joined Souter's opinion in the Megan's Law case and has voted consistently with him in every other sex related case. Justice Kennedy is not far behind them although his vote on letting the pedophile priests loose was probably more motivated by his primitive adherence to the Catholic Church than to any legal principle that might be found in our Constitution.
The reason the homosexual lobby is celebrating this ruling is not, as you indicated, that they no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for their private behavior. You see, the Left has always had its eye on the future, and has been very patient about it. They know that this ruling is going to be a wedge they can use to promote their agenda further, mostly by attacking various forms of "discrimination" that keep them from pushing themselves on the public square.
Quite clearly the Constitution authorizes the government to fight atomic wars with other nations by hiring private citizens who own nukes.
Pretty farsighted of the Founding Fathers eh?!
But that doesn't change the Constitution. If this "gradual change in what should be punished" doesn't manifest itself in the form of a constitutional amendment, then the Constitution hasn't changed.
Evidently this gradual change hasn't occurred in Texas, or they simply would have repealed the law on their own.
"As the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires Illinois to recognize the validity of records and judicial proceedings of sister states, the conclusion will not vary because the post-divorce recorded events underlying this litigation took place in other states than Illinois." "Petitioner and Henzel were married in Nevada. Thereafter petitioner brought her putative husband before the New York court. Petitioner and Henzel subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the New York court and its decree annulling their Nevada marriage was entered with jurisdiction, so far as this record shows, of the parties and the subject matter." "The New York annulment determines the marriage relationship that is the marital status of petitioner and Henzel, just as any divorce judgment determines such relationship. If the Nevada court had had jurisdiction by personal service in the state or appearance in the case of Henzel and the first Mrs. Henzel, its decree of divorce would have been unassailable in other states. So as to the New York decree annulling the marriage, New York had such jurisdiction of the parties and its decree is entitled to full faith throughout the Nation, in Nevada as well as in Illinois." Sutton v. Leib, 72 S.Ct. 398 (1952)
Actually, it's not. If the public acts and judgments of the States were not accorded full faith and credit in the other States, we would be the European Union, not a federal Republic.
I give up. There was a decision handed down this week by the Supreme Court that caused a wee bit of a controversy, remember? It's the subject of this thread? Hello?
Actually we are. Not enough attention is being given the the three European Court of Human Justice precedents cited in the majority opinion on the Texas case. While the actual way in which these European precedents were used is a little fuzzy, the way I read it is this: The 14th amendment guarantees Americans liberty, and the European Court, combined with whatever US public opinion will more or less stomach, defines what liberty is.
Creating a precedent for our law being determined by foreign courts was simply too high a price to pay for a very few Texas gays not being subject to misapplied prosecutorial discretion.
The reason for my reaction and others is the possibility for future damage this decision poses. Like Justice Thomas, I think the Texas law was stupid and I don't mourn its passing.
The problem is the reasoning of the decision directly suggests that any state legislation regarding sexual morality is unconstitutional and implies that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman would also be unconstitutional.
The problem is substantive due process. When a court finds a substantive "liberty" interest, as distinct from procedural due process guaranteeing procedural rights before one may be deprived of liberty, the door is opened for unlimited Supreme Court legislating. Why? Because there is no definition of "liberty" in the Constitution, so it means what five Justices say it means. It is almost an unlimited mandate to strike down legislation the Supremes don't like.
This was the fear with Roe v. Wade, another substantive due process decision. Over the years, the Rehnquist Court had pretty well restricted Roe to abortion, declining to interpret it as a broad mandate. I fear this decision wrecks that work and opens the door to lower courts throwing out all kinds of state laws.
I agree with you the citation to European precedent is troubling. U.S. courts have often looked to common law precedent in England regarding issues for which there is little U.S. precendent, but looking to continental civil law countries is unheard of - they have a different legal system.
This is of a piece with the SCOTUS habit of finding a "modern trend" against some kind of law out of flimsy evidence and then declaring all laws contrary to the "trend" unconsititutional. It's usurpation of powers not given by the Constitution.
What I am really bothered about is conservatives who didn't like the Texas law think the decision is great, not realizing they are ceding their liberty to the Supreme Court. Hasn't anyone noticed that we can't vote for Supreme Court Justices???
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.