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.

[NittanyLion]

I think the proper frame of reference is to remember that, for every one time the Supreme Court usurps a state's power for a conservative notion, there are 10 times it does so for a liberal one. While this is a foolish law (in my estimation), the proper venue for repealing it lies in Texas.

Conservatives stand a far better chance of making headway by advocating states' rights than a right to privacy at the federal level.

[aristeides]

Then perhaps you would be good enough to give me an example of the kind of thing I asked for. An actual case, if you don't mind?

As I understand it, under rational review as it has previously been applied, Kansas's sentencing disparity would have been routinely upheld. The Supreme Court may choose to play games and pretend that this is still rational review, but that is just because it is being dishonest. Courts are even more dangerous when they're dishonest, because there's even less limit to what they can do.

[AntiGuv]

Actually, allow me to correct myself. If Kansas is able to establish a rational objective which requires the sentencing disparity, then the Kansas statute will get upheld under the Romer and Lawrence rulings, unless the Supreme Court issues an Equal Protection ruling in deciding Limon v Kansas.

[Torie]

Yes, if there was a sentencing disparity in the law between blond and red haired rapists, that wouldn't get very far.

[Torie]

Well, if Lawrence has that in it, than Kennedy should be sued for malpractice, because his soaring prose did not go there. It went where no man has gone before, creating a new constitutional concept. I suppose someone who is disriminated in hiring because he is gay, in a state without laws proscribing that, should try to sue his way to Scotus, so that we can find out.

[AntiGuv]

Then perhaps you would be good enough to give me an example of the kind of thing I asked for. An actual case, if you don't mind?

Here's the most similar rationale I can think of:

City of Cleburne, Texas v Cleburne Living Center

Enjoy.

[Phaedrus]

shred the Supreme Court ...

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Sad thing for 10th amendment proponents is the fact its most partisan advocates can't get beyond the fact that they are most vitriolic about using it to justify silly bullshit.

Bans on sodomy, both heterosexual and homosexual, bans on miscegenation, deprivation of voting, commerce and property rights on the basis of race, and other political warts have long been justified by 10th amendment advocates - all of which are deeply antithetical to individual freedom to be left alone.

To put it another way, a legal principle which allows legislatures to opine at length about acts of homosexual sodomy can also be used to grant it a right to regulate the marital bed. I felt it all was pretty clear that the SC sees the Constitution as something which keeps government out of bedrooms.

[aristeides]

I'll look at it later. My recollection of it from law school is that treatises treated Cleburne as only pretending to use rational review and as in fact creating the functional equivalent of a protected class.

I wonder how many homosexuals there are who don't relish the dubious honor of having imposed upon them this status of being a protected ward of the state. Justice Thomas's affirmative action dissent shows how some blacks feel about it.

[AntiGuv]

I suppose someone who is disriminated in hiring because he is gay, in a state without laws proscribing that, should try to sue his way to Scotus, so that we can find out.

Boy Scouts of America v Dale

[templar]

But hey, it severely weakens states. Considering that you're such a big fan of the (federal) IRS, maybe you like that.

I'm not a fan of the IRS. You d*mn well know that. I'm an adherent to the rule of law, something which you do not believe in (along with most criminal minds) unless it suits you own purpose. BTW, for the record here, You have stated you are a tax lawyer. That means you make your living off of the IRS and it's regulations., I'd say you're a MUCH bigger fan of the IRS than myself or most any freeper around here.

[AntiGuv]

I wonder how many homosexuals there are who don't relish the dubious honor of having imposed upon them this status of being a protected ward of the state.

That's their problem, not mine. However they choose to deal with that bears no relation to the accuracy - or possible lack thereof - in my application of Romer, Lawrence, Limon, or Cleburne.

[NittanyLion]

Actually, I agree with your post. When states overreach by creating ridiculous laws of this sort, they set themselves up for intervention by the federal government.

Personally I'm not at all worked up over this. I don't think it really changes anything; those that claim this opens the door to same-sex marriage, incest and bestiality are completely wrong in my estimation.

In the end I think this decision will be inconsequential, except perhaps as a case study for legal students.

[aristeides]

Care to explain on what theory the Supreme Court thought Lawrence affected the outcome in Limon?

[Torie]

That is a free speech case.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I see very few people affected by this ruling except for the two gays who got off. The gay community should have little to boast about, since states rarely ever enforce these laws in this way. They used sodomy largely in combination with other criminal charges regarding rape and non-consensual sex. ...

I am and remain perplexed.

This opens the door to all kinds of pathologies becoming legalized. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's like the domino effect. You topple one taboo, then all the other taboos lined up behind it fall like dominos. First sodomy. Then gay marriage. Then adult/child sex. Then incest. Then bestiality. And on and on. The game doesn't end until all the dominos have fallen. That's been the game-plan all along.

So, this ruling is a major victory for gays. It opens the door to everything becoming equal between homosexuals and heterosexuals: marriage between gays - and everything that goes along with that: taxes, testifying in court, etc.

It's not the sodomy, per se, that people are objecting to being legalized - gays have been doing that all along, whether it was legal or not. It's the legal slippery slope that we now find ourselves on. Gay marriage is next on their agenda. Then all the sexual pathologies will follow.

[AntiGuv]

Limon was challenged in large part on the basis of Romer; the Kansas defense rested on the Bowers precedent; Lawrence reversed Bowers, which no longer exists as a point of law; Romer is now controlling; the 5th Amendment brings sentencing under the purview of both Lawrence and Romer.

Romer states that: even in the ordinary equal protection case calling for the most deferential of standards, we insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained. If Kansas can establish the relation between the classification here adopted and the object to be attained, they will meet the threshold in Romer. By all means, if anyone here can explain that relation (consistent with Romer and Lawrence), then go right ahead.

[AntiGuv]

Dale's challenge contended that intermediate standard of review should apply in much the same manner as it applies in matters of gender discrimination. The Court declined to agree with that position.

[Torie]

Anal intercourse rape is more likely to spread disease (including the contracting of AIDS) than vaginal rape. Just a thought.

[Torie]

That wasn't set forth in the syllabus. Thanks. I guess you think Lawrence maybe overturns this one too, eh?