[Scenic Sounds]

It's the left, not the right, that's being inconsistent here.

You're correct that the left argued that the Supreme Court should use the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn state laws in the fifties, the sixties, etc. But even before that it was the conservatives who argued in favor of the Supreme Court giving the Fourteenth Amendment an expansive interpretation during the early part of the last century to strike down state regulations on business. Neither side has been consistent historically.

My point is that today I'm seeing conservatives who argue in favor of an aggressive Supreme Court in the area of state college admissions policies express profound shock that the same Supreme Court might dare interfere with state criminal laws concerning private sexual conduct.

I'd like to see the Supreme Court exercise a little more self-restraint in both areas. I'd like to see our states have some more room for experimentation.

And I'd like to see more conservatives develop a more consistent approach to how they think the Supreme Court should function in our society.

[Skywalk]

Expecting many of the people on this site to be consistent?

Ain't gonna happen.

They'd much rather ignore huge portions of the constitution when it fits them, and scream from the mountaintops when their favorite laws are struck down rightfully as burdens upon our liberty.

The same morons would be going nuts if the SCOTUS struck down anti-drug laws as impositions on the sovereignty of the individual. But I can still fight with them on issues on which we agree.

[puroresu]

Well, you are being consistent in a certain way, I'll concede that! And you are correct that decades ago there were pro-business conservatives who wanted the courts to intervene in state legislation.

You raise some good points!

My other observation would be that in the case of Michigan's Affirmative Action program, it violates a federal law (1964 Civil Rights Act) which clearly forbids racial discrimination. That law was sold to the public by "liberals" with assurances that it would not result in reverse discrimination against whites. Hubert Humphrey even vowed to eat the entire Congressional Record if it ever permitted reverse discrimination. Yet, we're told now that it does permit that. All we're asking in the Michigan case is that "liberals" abide by their own law.


In the sodomy case, the court is totally off in fantasy land in claiming any federal jurisdiction over such laws.