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.

[DAnconia55]

Then please, show me where in the constitution it says "guns". Or for that matter where it says I can't have Weapons of Mass Destruction. All it mentions is a right to bare arms and a well regulated mititia.

One can reasonably infer that the Founders intended us to have EVERY infantry weapon. The quotations of the founders made it clear.

If it's single man operated, and not a crew serviced weapon, then we are Constitutionally allowed to own it. (Regardless of what the law says.)

That is the MINIMAL standard that can be rationally argued for the limitation of the second amendment. Any argument less than this one, has no merit.

That said, there's a moral argument that goes beyond the Constitution but we'll skip it.

[DAnconia55]

I for one am grateful we have the rule of law

But we don't. "....shall not be infringed...."

The Supreme Court should only rule on constitutional issues that are actually in the document.

Incorrect and shows a blatant disregard and total ignorance of history.

[inquest]

What you touch on is one of the murkiest areas of full faith and credit law.

Well, all I have to say is that I don't see why it's so murky. To me, the principle seems clear enough: states are simply required to treat other states' public records - their documentation of facts, basically - like they treat their own documentation. It would still be up to them to decide what they do with these facts, as long as they do it in a non-discriminatory manner with regard to sister states.

[inquest]

So... at least Federally there's no law against it.

You are aware that this ruling was regarding state laws?

[inquest]

One other thing I should mention: I'm not disagreeing with you that this ruling won't result in a renewed push for gay marriage, but I don't think Article IV will be the vehicle. It's far more likely to be the all-purpose "equal protection" clause.

[Skywalk]

I hope so. We are basically in agreement from what I've seen of your posts on other threads.

I was just calling out some other 'conservatives' frankly, so I hope you don't take offense :)

[Skywalk]

I hope so. We are basically in agreement from what I've seen of your posts on other threads.

I was just calling out some other 'conservatives' frankly, so I hope you don't take offense :)

[joesbucks]

I see nowhere in the Constitution the term Infantry Weapon, nor any words that refer to single man or crew serviced. Now there may have been debate recorded in the Federalist Papers or other such historical notation of intent, but remember, at that time, the infantry was about all the fighting they were up against. The purpose of the second admendment was to allow the citizens the opportunity to defend against an enemy whether from afar or it's own government with like and similar weapons. We know some of the weapon power the US government has and for that matter many foreign nations. Our government has in its possession WMD's as well as other advanced weapons. If we cannot fight back with like weapons, then we've lost and should our government turn on us, we cannot effectively fight back (or be ala Iraq where a soldier or two per day is picked off by sniper fire). I don't believe the intent of the founding fathers was for us not to have like weapons.

[Reactionary]

I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.

Right. "Sticking a knife in the heart of big government" obviously means that a handful of unelected liberals gets to decide what kind of behavior *all* Americans will be required to tolerate.

"Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state."

Right. And individual liberty was doing just fine when states had some say in the matter - as opposed to a handful of nihilists.

What a joke.

[danmar]

I agree. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, however, I agree even less with the nanny state telling free men what they can and can't do in their homes.

My point exactly...where do we draw the line on the so called "moral" issues.
Since when has the State the "right" to tell me, as a free citizen, what to do, in my own home.

The States reach, ends at the border line of my property, no if's, and, or but's...period.

Those "Holier" than thou, Bible thumping, 1800ths retards, better get a life!
Don't you ever dare to force upon me, your fossilized religious believes!

[egomeimihi]

Do libertarians think that the courts should exercise will rather than judgement? It seems that they have no problem whatever with judicial activism so long as such activism upholds their own values. They claim to want limited government, but fail to see separation of powers as a necessary element of that ideal. The problem that conservatives have with an activist court is that it replaces the will of the the duly elected legislature with that of nine appointed judges. Unless the Texas statute in Lawrence violated the plain text of the Constitution, the SCOTUS had no legitimate right to overturn it. The crux of the matter is not the desirability or undesirability of laws limiting what consenting adults can do in the bedroom (I agree with Justice Thomas on this matter), but whether unelected judges should impose their own subjective values over those of the lawfully elected legisatures of all fifty states. The same interpretive methods employed by the majority in Lawrence may very well lead to the complete elimination of our second amendment rights. Do libertarians really think that the Constitution should be a "living" document? Such "life" can only lead to its death.

[egomeimihi]

I have come to the conclusion that if the case had not involved gays, the decision would never have drawn this criticism and would have been hailed as a win for getting government out of the bedroom.

The criticism has nothing to do with the involvement of gays at all. The criticism is that the proper way to get the government out of the bedroom is through the legislative process. The people of Texas have a say in what their legislature does. They have no say at all in what the SCOTUS does. The issue before the court was not whether the Texas statute was "intrusive and purposeless," but whether it was strictly Constitutional. Rather than rely on the plain text of the Constitution, the court simply made up a new right. The danger is that the plain text of the Constitution no longer matters to a majority of the Court. By the same token, it no longer matters what the plain text of the Second Amendment says either... if the court doesn't like it, they can simply define it away like the Ninth Circuit did.

[AppyPappy]

No Pappy, that is statutory rape or child rape or child molestation with rape, depending on the state or the prosecutor.(say buh bye for many years)

The Supremes said the Right to Privacy supercedes state laws, including laws regarding age of consent.

[Cold Heat]

Rather than rely on the plain text of the Constitution, the court simply made up a new right. The danger is that the plain text of the Constitution no longer matters to a majority of the Court.

Yes, I see your point, but I believe that these fears will be rectified as the first attempt or two to use this perceived wedge get stopped by the court and the position is clarified.

I got the impression by way of the judges responded that they knew there would be some further challenges coming down the road after this. This case did not give them all the points they needed to clarify what their intent is.

I believe their intent was to remind states that although the court has been invoking the 10th in past years, that they still had the intent to strike down any state law that interfered with the privacy of the home and government had limits in it's ability to intrude on that "perceived" right of privacy.

The next case should clarify and it will be interesting for sure. I hope I got my thoughts across, it is early.(only one cup of coffee so far)

[Cold Heat]

including laws regarding age of consent.

I did not read that into this decision.

[aristeides]

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times agrees with me that the Supreme Court vacated the Kansas court's conviction of Limon (for sodomizing a 14-year-old boy) and that it told the Kansas court to reconsider both the conviction and the sentence in light of Lawrence. Justices Extend Decision on Gay Rights and Equality.

[AppyPappy]

I'm just telling you what it said. I ain't responsible for the decision. This was one of the most empty-headed rulings in recent history. They should have used the Equal Protection clause.

[Cold Heat]

They should have used the Equal Protection clause.

O'connor's response was entirely within the constitutionality of the Texas law as it only applied to a male/male act. I have not read the others very closely yet.

[djf]

They specifically did not ignore age of consent.
"Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act"

[AppyPappy]

Their argument was the Right to Privacy superceded state law.