Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 341-348 next last
To: ElkGroveDan
even if you think a right to privacy is a good idea, that's not the point. IT ISN"T IN THE CONSTITUTION period.

The right to privacy doesn't have to be in the constitution for it to exist. Read Amendment nine from the constitution below:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The constitution and our bill of rights is not meant to be a laundry list of what we have the right to do. The bill of rights was added to our constitution because these were the overriding concerns of people at that time. And they wanted to gurantee that the government would not deny them these rights.

The right to privacy is one of our natural, inherent rights. For example, even if the right to free speech was not listed in the bill of rights, it would still exist.

If enough busy-bodies such as yourself keep protesting though, we might have to add the right to privacy to our list of rights, since some people refuse to recognize it.

61 posted on 06/28/2003 1:36:44 PM PDT by jimmccleod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Lawrence was a long step towards tyranny by the federal courts.

A tyranny of giving individuals more freedom, and governments less? Shocking!

62 posted on 06/28/2003 1:37:12 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: shred
I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC!

Consistent is one thing the Court ain't. This week, they upheld a law using strict scrutiny and struck down a law using minimal scrutiny. That's completely ass-backwards. Personally, I'm no fan of the 3-tier level-of-scrutiny process, and maybe it is time to chuck it or at least overhaul it. But if that's what the Justices want to do, then they need to just come out and say it. I think that's my problem with the decision. They seem to be changing their own rules while pretending to follow them. It strikes me as dishonest and contrived.

63 posted on 06/28/2003 1:37:27 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmccleod
For example, even if the right to free speech was not listed in the bill of rights, it would still exist.

Indeed, that was the fear of some of the founders. By listing some important freedoms, they feared that eventually those listed would become assumed to be exhaustive. Although their fears have been born out, one can also say that had they not be listed at all, even those rights would now be long gone.

64 posted on 06/28/2003 1:39:40 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
The recipient of this pervert's unnatural affection was a 14 year old boy, not a man. And if it had been my 14 year old, the perpetrator would not have gone to prison -- I would have punished him personally. Use your imagination on that one.

Sure. Lets see...I imagine you with a 10 gauge and...no, lets leave it there. :-)

65 posted on 06/28/2003 1:39:55 PM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
It's the newly discovered "right" of the "expression of essential humanity." Do you have any idea what that means?

Sure. It means exactly what Justices O'Connor and Kennedy tell us it means. The scope of our rights is now controlled by nine unelected judges instead of principles of law. We are becoming a nation of men and not laws.

66 posted on 06/28/2003 1:41:13 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
We don't want to know how you are going to be celebrating this weekend, thank you.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Nothing about telling adults what they can do in their private lives there.

Sure, I'll celebrate.

67 posted on 06/28/2003 1:44:50 PM PDT by RJCogburn ("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
O'Conners views make sense to me. Kennedy isn't even in left field, he's out of the ball park.
68 posted on 06/28/2003 1:46:17 PM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
This was a trampling of the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers. This is a naked

I fail to grasp the reasoning behind the knee jerk reactions to this decision.

SCOTUS was not telling the states what they should do, rather they were telling them what they cannot do.

Ever since I could walk, conservatives have been trying to keep government out of the bedroom. The state is government and they got into a bedroom.

Leaving the gay issue aside for the sake of argument, what is wrong with affirming the right of privacy regarding the bedroom and taking into account that no illegal substance or other things were involved.

It seems to me that sodomy is still illegal if combined with rape or underage child.

I can see some people attempting to interpret this in other ways, but SCOTUS with clarify this with a second ruling when they do.

69 posted on 06/28/2003 1:46:26 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
If we are to stay free, we must have both

Yes, but that would be personal morality, I think.

70 posted on 06/28/2003 1:47:09 PM PDT by RJCogburn ("Who knows what's in a man's heart?".....Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: djf
The gist of some peoples arguments here (including mine) go something like this: If my neighbor puts a tacky Pink Flamingo in his front yard, what do I do?
1) Ignore it and look the other way
2) Call the city council, contact the local swat team, etc?

There is one caveat:
If I complain about his flamingo, he now has every right to complain about the junker car I have parked here!

So my answer is, I shut up about the flamingo.
I am still a conservative.
71 posted on 06/28/2003 1:48:44 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
AMEN!
72 posted on 06/28/2003 1:52:02 PM PDT by flair2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: djf
Nice analogy! LOL
73 posted on 06/28/2003 1:55:09 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Exactly...diffused among the majority of the people...and it cannot be coersed, it just has to be there. And be there it must if we are to remain free.

If we lose it, then as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry said,

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." - Samuel Adams

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Patrick Henry

74 posted on 06/28/2003 1:56:31 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Well, here's what's next.

"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."

75 posted on 06/28/2003 2:05:49 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: shred
THe SC doesn't speak for me, they are way out of line. The SC telling the states how to run themselves is all about big government. Conservatives like to allow the states to make the decisions that best fit themselves.
76 posted on 06/28/2003 2:08:39 PM PDT by sonofron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
I understand your viewpoint, but I am concerned about the wide brush SCOTUS paints with by including all sex acts in private in their decision. I have three questions to ask you in light of the Lawrence decision:

If Lawrence was the law before the Clinton scandals, would he have been impeached and would we have ever known about Monica at all?

What does this decision do to the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy?

Will prisoners be allowed to have consensual sex all they want and will this turn prisons into Gay recruitment centers?

What do you think?

77 posted on 06/28/2003 2:11:00 PM PDT by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
Heh. I have both on, yep.

You forgot your groin protector.

***WHUMP!!!***

;-)

78 posted on 06/28/2003 2:11:11 PM PDT by lowbridge (Rob: "I see a five letter word. F-R-E-E-P. Freep." Jerry: "Freep? What's that?" - Dick Van Dyke Show)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
If you accept the Constitution, you have to accept the procedures it lays out for its interpretation and enforcement.

The Constitution doesn't lay out any procedures for interpretation. SCOTUS erred quite egregiously, and we have every right to shout that fact from the rooftops, without in any way diminishing our fidelity to the Constitution.

79 posted on 06/28/2003 2:12:01 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
The further afield we as a peopl depart from the basic moral foundation that heralded the founding of this nation, the more danger our Republic and our liberty will stand into. That moral foundation, which derives from the same place the founders stated that the unalienable rights derived from, udergirds it all.
80 posted on 06/28/2003 2:13:22 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson