The Supreme Court Legislates Again

Townhall.com ^ | June 30, 2003 | Chuck Colson

[Gritty]

The Supreme Court has passed another law, this one supplanting the law passed by the people of the state of Texas in its democratic process. But you say the Court doesn't pass laws. Well, as Justice Scalia in his angry dissent said, the Court is supposed to be a court, but it has become a super-legislature overriding the decisions of the people. What a travesty.

By a 6-3 vote, the unelected nine based their decision to make sodomy constitutionally protected on the so-called "right to privacy."

Justice Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said that the issue was "two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle." To deny that, he said, would reflect animus. And, he added, times and circumstances do change. Maybe, but the Constitution doesn't.

And what about the 1986 decision that Kennedy and this majority overthrew? In abortion cases, they constantly lectured us, they can't change the law that people have come to rely on.

Well, most Americans seem to be applauding the decision, and I guess there's a libertarian streak in all of us. We don't like the government in our bedrooms.

But if laws are unreasonable, we ought to change the law through our legislatures, not the courts. As George Will wrote, "'Unconstitutional' is not a synonym for 'unjust' or 'unwise.' . . . Legislators can adjust laws to their communities' changing moral sensibilities without creating, as courts do, principles, such as the broadly sweeping privacy right, that sweep away more than communities intend to discard."

Precisely. If the right to privacy protects adults engaged in private, consensual sex, how are we going to outlaw polygamy? The polygamist and all of his wives practice private, consensual sex.

How are we going to maintain laws against incest? It's private, consensual sexual behavior in the security of one's own bedroom. Why stop a forty-year-old man having sex with his consenting nineteen-year-old daughter—or son? And why stop siblings as long as there's consent?

And what about pedophilia that's "consensual," or "intergenerational intimacy," as the North American Man-Boy Love Association calls it?

One even has to raise the question of bestiality. Peter Singer, the eminent bioethicist at Princeton, argues that animals can consent since consent needn't be verbal.

Sen. Rick Santorum was vilified for raising these questions. So was Bill Pryor, the Alabama attorney general nominated for the Circuit Court. Critics say they're making homosexuality and bestiality or incest morally equivalent. Nonsense. They're simply pointing out that that's what the court is doing—making it inevitable, in fact.

The gay lobby immediately hailed the decision as the prelude to gay marriage. Of course! As Justice Scalia said in his dissent, this decision "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation." Well, will the media apologize to Santorum? They ought to. Will they lobby now to reinstate the Catholic priests who are pedophiles? After all, much of that was "consensual." Hardly.

What we can hope and pray for is nothing less than a miracle—that two sensible judges will be appointed to join Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Please, Lord, may it happen.

[1stFreedom]

IMO,

We need to re-elect Pres. Bush and get more pubbies into the Senate.

Then we need to impeach 3 of the Justices for abusing their power.

:-)

[Pete]

If you have never read Colson's "How Now Shall We Live" it is worth picking up. He has a whole section where who goes through Judicial cases from the last 50 years and documents the outrageous actions in the courts. Further, he goes on to show how this affects our culture. Not just the rulings themselves but the whole idea of the Court as the final definers of morality and what that means to us as individuals and as a society.

[gdani]

The Supreme Court has passed another law, this one supplanting the law passed by the people of the state of Texas in its democratic process. But you say the Court doesn't pass laws. Well, as Justice Scalia in his angry dissent said, the Court is supposed to be a court, but it has become a super-legislature overriding the decisions of the people.

How does Scalia square his comments with his joining the decision to overturn Oregon's "assisted suicide" law? Isn't that a state matter that's none of the USSC's business?

And how does he & Colson feel about state laws that allow, for instance, medicinal marijuana? Or a state law that would allow gay marriage?

[DannyTN]

"Justice Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said that the issue was "two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle." To deny that, he said, would reflect animus."

I noticed Kennedy's first practice was in San Francisco. I wonder if he is gay?

[tdadams]

Shhhh! You're not supposed to mention those inconsistencies. They're pretending to stand on principle, you know.

[gcruse]

Heh. Bless their hearts.

[El Gato]

how are we going to outlaw polygamy?

We can't. The "outlaw" branch of the Mormon's should be kicking up it's heals over this decision. Polyandry (more than one husband) as in "Paint your Wagon", is now also fine with the Supreme Court. Actually both are fine with me too, but not via judical fiat, but rather the normal legislative process, or if deemed important and fundamental enough, through the Constitutional amendment process.