Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court

Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

[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.

[firewalk]

.

[colorado tanker]

(I'll ignore for now the fact that these weren't federal court rulings you quoted)

So now the Supreme Court of the United States is not a federal court. OK. I'm enjoying this visit to the Twilight Zone.

In the Twilight Zone no state has any obligation to recognize marriages recognized by other states. Whenever a couple moves across a state line they have to get remarried.

[inquest]

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?

Yeah, hello. You seemed to be implying that the Constitution has changed, without an amendment changing it. The ruling here didn't try to claim that. If the courts say that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, then they're saying that they've always been unconstitutional, from the moment the relevant clauses have been part of the Constitution.

[colorado tanker]

You seemed to be implying that the Constitution has changed, without an amendment changing it.

Yep, that's what activist courts do, they change the Consitution without amending it, by finding new "rights."

If the courts say that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, then they're saying that they've always been unconstitutional, from the moment the relevant clauses have been part of the Constitution.

That's what they said. But doesn't it seem a little bit suspicous to you that for 213 years of this Republic no court ever said sodomy laws were unconstitutional??? And how about the fact that when the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment, went into effect, every State had a sodomy law but none of the men who actually wrote the Constitution ever said they were unconstitutional under the new Constitution???

This is just more "living Constitution" situational ethics bull pucky, which means your rights and mine mean nothing more than what five unelected justices think they mean, the plain language of the Constitution be d@nmed.

[inquest]

So now the Supreme Court of the United States is not a federal court.

Those index citations you provided weren't the usual for the USSC. Since the posting of your comment, I did find the rulings, and for Sutton vs. Leib, the more standard index citation is 342 US 402. I don't know what "72 S.Ct. 398" was supposed to refer to, but that's what threw me off.

In any case, I did look over the ruling on Findlaw, and I answered my own question as to whether this nullified any aspect of Illinois law. It did not. This simply was not a case that involved a conflict between the laws of two different states, so therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Whenever a couple moves across a state line they have to get remarried.

Complete distortion of my position, and I think you know it.

[inquest]

I may have misunderstood you at #151. When you said, "All would appear unconstitutional now," I thought you meant to say that these types of laws truly seem to have become unconstitutional, where they weren't before. I guess instead you were simply trying to make sense of SCOTUS's logic. Sorry for the confusion.

[colorado tanker]

In any case, I did look over the ruling on Findlaw, and I answered my own question as to whether this nullified any aspect of Illinois law. It did not. This simply was not a case that involved a conflict between the laws of two different states, so therefore it's irrelevant to this discussion.

That's the whole point. The full faith and credit clause doesn't invalidate state laws, it requires that states recognize the public acts and judgments of other states. That's why a Nevada marriage is recognized in the other 49 states.

"S. Ct." stands for the Supreme Court reporter.

[colorado tanker]

Well it certainly has been an interesting thread. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Off to the Saturday night movies.

[DAnconia55]

Most of the Ayatollahs who post such Stalinist drivel are so sex deprived they get less women than the gays do....

I can't figure out if they post so for fear or envy.

And honestly, I'd rather not know.

[DAnconia55]

There is no consitutional right to privacy.

Is it explicitly stated as a power of government?

Nope.
Guess what? That means they don't have any right to infringe on our privacy.

[inquest]

The full faith and credit clause doesn't invalidate state laws, it requires that states recognize the public acts and judgments of other states.

Agreed. But it doesn't say that they have to accomodate their laws to these other public acts and judgements. Let me give an example.

Say my bride and I get married in Nevada and move to California. If we're both of the requisite age, and meet all other legal criteria that California requires for married people, then California is required to treat us like a married couple under its laws. If we are not of the requisite age, then as far as I can see, it is not required to do so, since that would undermine its own laws. It's true that as a matter of comity, the states routinely allow this sort of thing all the time, but nothing I've come across so far suggests that they are required to accomodate what are essentially violations of their laws.

Anyway, enjoy the movie. I'll just freep till I sleep.

[DAnconia55]

"The Polyamory Society is a nonprofit organization that was founded to support, defend and promote Polyamorists, Polyamory Families, Children of the Polyamory Lifestyle and the Polyamory Institution worldwide." "The Society was created to bring about positive social change for the Institution of Polyamory. This is not to say there were not already a few effective Poly groups working to change the serial monogamous monopoly." "The principle objective of the Polyamory Society is to support the political, educational, social and economic equality of Polyamorists and Polyfamilies worldwide. The Society is committed to achievement through nonviolence and relies upon the press, the petition, the ballot and the courts, and is persistent in the use of legal and moral persuasion even in the face of violent hostility." "Discrimination once permitted can not be bridled. Recent history in all the great movements of 20th century prove that the cultures will permit oppression of subcultures until the subculture that is oppressed stand up for themselves. Taking a lesson from our Gay brothers and sisters we thought it best to develop multiple groups and organizations to represent our position. The Polyamory movement is very young and some Polyactivists, Polyamorists and Polyfamilies felt that the movement needed an extremely visible organizational symbol, vehicle and voice to represent the Polyamory ideal."

And this hurts you or interferes with your RIGHTS how?

[xm177e2]

It's the newly discovered "right" of the "expression of essential humanity."

Does this mean people have a right to have sex? If someone is ugly and lonely, should the FedGov subsidize their habit of visiting prostitutes?

[inquest]

And this hurts you or interferes with your RIGHTS how?

I'm beginning to wonder whether you think laws against public bestiality are unconstitutional.

[colorado tanker]

What you touch on is one of the murkiest areas of full faith and credit law. Several decisions suggest a state need not recognize a public act of another state if it would offend a fundamental public policy. What that means and if it would apply to gay marriages is anyone's guess.

I'm outta heah. I can hear "That's Entertainment" playing in the other room.

[PhilipFreneau]

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.

Yea, right. Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah. Keep your asbestos suit handy.

[DAnconia55]

--- I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. ---

Ronald Reagan

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

I've been looking for that quote for ages.

I need it to use against the Fascist Pro-WOD wonder dorks around here....

[colorado tanker]

And this hurts you or interferes with your RIGHTS how?

It doesn't interfere with my rights at all. If you believe the institution of marriage and the nuclear family is the fundamental building block of a civil society, well it sweeps it away. If you don't, then I guess like the song from "Cabaret" about "two ladies" it just sounds like fun.

[DAnconia55]

I'm beginning to wonder whether you think laws against public bestiality are unconstitutional.

As long as you keep your pecker out of MY animals, I don't see why not...

I'd add that animals cannot consent to sex.
But then they don't have legal standing in courts, or rights either...

And I don't see a Constitutional Amendment banning it. So... at least Federally there's no law against it.

[ladyinred]

I need it to use against the Fascist Pro-WOD wonder dorks around here..

If any of you really think Ronald Reagan would approve of this, you are sadly mistaken. It also is against the rules to call names, oh, I forgot, you don't believe in rules do you?