SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Antoninus]

I'd also point out that if there is a right to privacy, how can the government institute am progressive income tax based on how much money I make. Isn't my income a private matter?

Honestly, in the long run, your personal finances are much more a matter of privacy than who/what you roll around in bed with. And yet, our vaunted Supreme Court has not deigned to find a right to privacy to protect us from the depredations of the IRS, have they?

The whole subject is so juvenile. I feel like I'm arguing with high schoolers here.

[jethropalerobber]

This decision may just wake up the sleeping giant.

you must be talking about all those people in the bible belt and mormon belt who are just now for the first time realizing that all those blow jobs with their spouse were illegal, and asking themselves: wtf?

[Dimensio]

I'm afraid that Antoninus is correct. It has been well established that once someone compares their opponents' position or actions to that of Hitler or the Nazis they have officially conceded the argument. It's one of the older rules regarding Internet discussions. While it was originally created as an explanation for USENET discussions, it easily applies to web forums (as these were not very common at the time that the Law was derived).

[OWK]

Hiya Sandy.

Hope all is well.

[Clint N. Suhks]

How could anyone stand before the power of such a well-constructed argument?

Judges tend to follow the constitution, what’s your problem?

Had you only ended it with something profound like "nyah nyah"... it might have been one for posterity.

Excellent point, I’ll reserve such accommodations for you next time, too bad you have nothing better.

[Elsie]

..., be much easier to track our finances, etc.

And, by extension, track YOU!

---

Today, if you follow someone around constantly, taking his picture, that is called 'stalking', and, illegal.

If the gummint takes YOUR picture, by THOUSANDS of 'public' cameras, it is merely 'preventing' crime and 'you had NO expection of privacy in a PUBLIC place anyway'.

[jwalsh07]

I see your back for a visit. A great day for libertarians and leftists who yearn for an overly strong central government ruled by an oligarchy of 9.

The only difference between the leftists and the libertarians is your goals diverge at certain points. Both would like to issue edicts from Washington so that the pissants can enjoy "freedom" your way.

Disgusting display of ideology over Constitution.

Kennedy's decision is a policy decision ungrounded in the Constitution, using the abominable Roe as precedent and contrary to his own opinion that Roe was unconstitutional.

Did the Constitution change in the past 17 years? Was it amended to include a "right to privacy"?

One can abhor peeking in windows, which of course seldom happens, and also abhor the edicts from Washington, libertarians and leftists.

[OWK]

I'd submit that those advocating the criminalization and subsequent identification and imprisonment of homosexuals have unfortunately drawn the comparisons themselves, in spite of the old addage about such comparisons.

[Dimensio]

Please bear in mind that I am neither gay nor liberal.

I've witnessed a number of people on the pro-sodomy law side whining that their opponents accuse anyone who disagree with them of being homosexuals (albeit in the closet). Interesting how they resort to the same kind of behaviour.

It looks like the shoe is on the other hand.

[OWK]

Judges tend to follow the constitution, what’s your problem?

I'd nominate this one for "joke of the day".

[Dead Corpse]

Oh, Ruuuuuuuuubeeeeeeeeee!.......Don't take your luv to town!

OK darn it. Now you are EEEevvvvil as well.

[Antoninus]

It applies well here.

Yawn. It doesn't apply at all, bozo. A country of libertinarian would have been easy prey for the Nazi war machine and would have ended up under Nazi domination. Meanwhile, our horrible, evil, sodomy-forbidding, pornography-forbidding, fascist hell-hole republic during WWII managed to defeat both Hitler and Tojo at the same time.

[Elsie]

Sandy has no intention of creating an about page.

---

CHICKEN!!!

;^)

[Antoninus]

Yeah? Whatever happened to Ernst? Don't hear much about him after "The Night of the Long Knives."

Lovers' quarrel I guess.

[Thane_Banquo]

Right, but we cannot get away from the fact that our criminal laws, and our choices on what issues not to legislate, have moral bases. So we cannot really say the government shouldn't regulate morality. It is too sweeping. Perhaps a better statement would be the government should not make laws (which are based on moral view) when there are no injuries to non-consenting parties.

Honestly I do not believe it is the Texas legislatures role to regulate private sexual acts, but from a 10th amendment perspective, and a perspective of precedent historically being expanded beyond its original intent, this was bad law handed down by SCOTUS.

[Dimensio]

The adage is there because calling your opponents Nazis is a cop-out. You should explain exactly why their position is bad rather than making a blanket comparison that may not be entirely accurate.

Also, remembe the old adage about arguing on the Internet, and how it is like running in the Special Olympics.

[Antoninus]

you must be talking about all those people in the bible belt and mormon belt who are just now for the first time realizing that all those blow jobs with their spouse were illegal, and asking themselves: wtf?

That's really clever! What are you 12, 13 maybe?

[Clint N. Suhks]

I'd nominate this one for "joke of the day".

You mean your obfuscation to why Liberaltarians ignore the 10th? Thought so.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You mean your obfuscation why Liberaltarians ignore the 10th? Thought so. Oh and why Liberaltarians are hypocrites.

[Roscoe]

THE SAME POWER that SCOTUS uses to strike down state Med MJ laws

The USSC didn't strike down any "state Med MJ laws".