SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[NeoCaveman]

I can't tell you how overjoyed I am that the Supreme Court thinks its ok to f*ck a goat. /sarcasm

That is still unsure. After this week od rulings I would guess that it is legal unless the court decides there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing it. (/snicker)

[fifteendogs]

Didn't the court earlier this week effectively say that the fouteenth amendment didn't exist. What are these people smoking?

[Elsie]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The SCOTUS has said that what two consenting adults do privately in their bedroom is not within the power of the Fed or the states to regulate.

---

Not quite........................

 

What part of ...are reserved to the states respectively... do you NOT understand?

 

You could have just as easily written this:

"The SCOTUS has said that what two consenting adults do PUBLICALLY, on their front lawn, is not within the power of the Fed or the states to regulate."

 and it would be considered senseless.

[Pahuanui]

As soon as some bestiality porn actor in the Valley is arrested and brought up on charges, his lawyer's going to be talking about the Lawrence v. Texas and nothing else...

Ah.... no. People in 'the business' in the Valley can afford far, far better lawyers than some schlub who'd try and equate filming bestiality with this case.

And since bestiality, to my knowledge, isn't commercially produced in the Valley, or on this continent, for that matter, the point is moot.

[Carlucci]

Question: With regard to the Patriot Act, Before and After this ruling, If two consenting adults decide to plan a crime, but make NO EFFORT to actually carry it out, in the "privacy" of their bedroom, and are detected doing so, are they guilty of a crime?

Would any evidence of conspiracy be thrown out on privacy grounds?

[Final Authority]

There is no absolute right to privacy, as there is no absolute right to exercise free speech. Apparently, the SCOTUS believe the founders wrote the Constitution without regard to morality or what is best left to the States to consider. This SC, in their waning days, seem intent on speeding up the process to make the USA indistinguishable from the nations from which in the past we held in lower esteem. For all intents and purposes this latest decision and revelation changes nothing, just the understanding that the members of the SCOTUS are the most important people in the USA. The Dems have known this for years because most of the liberal gains in the past were by way of the courts because the consensus was not there for legislation. It is now made obvious for all of us who believe in the values that made the USA great that the President must, need I say, stack the court, at all levels, with like minded judges.

[E Rocc]

I can't tell you how overjoyed I am that the Supreme Court thinks its ok to f*ck a goat. /sarcasm

It's a good thing they focused on this rather than preserving second ammendment freedoms, or stopping such minor things as no-knock warrants and civil forfeiture.

People who celebrate rulings like this just don't have a firm grasp on reality. The Supreme Court is focusing on the rights of a few perverts while raping the rest of us blind.

The Supreme Court only deals with cases that are brought before it. It can't decide what issues to address or not address. For example, in the decision upholding the ban on medical marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, Justice Thomas specifically said they were not ruling on the Constitutionality of the Act itself, because it had not been specifically challenged.

-Eric

[JudgemAll]

Does this mean you can have sex with your 18-year-old daughter now? How about 15-year-old if a resident of Hawaii? (that's the age of consent in that state.)

That and perverted people can also have kids and "raise" them.

[jethropalerobber]

from Kennedy's opionion (my emphasis):

"It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law."

[rintense]

No, let me be clear. These backrooms are not legal. They just 'occur'. They happen under the guise of a regular club for gays- but usually only the gays know if there is other entertainment possible.

Plus, if what you say is true, they're assuming that Het couples don't engage in sodomy- which is completely naive. Look at all the hubbub with that George Michael case. Many gays thought what he did was legal because it was consensual- regardless if it was a public place. The core issue is that too many people think they have the *right* to do anything- including have sex in public places. My argument is that some in the gay community believe this. And they'll view this ruling as an avenue to continue to believe something completely false.

[Lazamataz]

Ping

[E Rocc]

Peeking in windows??? Have you walked down any city street recently and looked at anything going on above shoe level?

I don't recall hearing that the petitioners in this case were visible to the outdoors when arrested.

-Eric

[Elsie]

CONSENSUAL ADULTS says nothing about animals, or children, or adultery.

Huh?

Every time I was an adulterer, it was by CONSENT!

[rintense]

Oh no! I think many people- regardless of sexual orientation- like to have sex in public places. It's a thrill on the chance of being caught. But is it a right?

[Belial]

Or will it be lower the age of consent and allowing consensual "intergenerational" sex?

Maybe they'll decide we need to punch in at 9am in clownsuits.

But your boogymen are scarier, I'm sure. Oh, the poor children. Let's all get hysterical, Sparky. The more sober among us realize that there is ZERO credible movement to change age of consent laws. But never mind that! Back to your previously scheduled fearmongering. O, for the children!!!

[Lazamataz]

GW Bush caused this to happen.

[JudgemAll]

This is a matter of state rights, not fed rights.

In my book, the court has given up its job and given it to the media and the mob of liberals to decide and arbitrate along the "laws" of political correctness.

[Lady Eileen]

The Republic is dead, long live the Empire

Get me off this sinking ship.

[HumanaeVitae]

Public "morality" (as opposed to "morality" in public places) is absolutely positively none of the government's business in a free society.

Actually, yes it is. I love how you libertarians talk about 'honoring the Constitution' and 'going back to original Constitutional principles'. If you actually cared about that or knew anything about 'original Constitutional principles' you'd know that the federal government has only enumerated powers, whereas the states themselves are governments of general jurisdiction. Under the 'original understanding' of the Constitution, the Feds prohibited the states from doing only certain things (entering into treaties, granting letters of marque and reprisal, passing bills of attainder, and so on (cf. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution). The states could regulate whatever was not explicitly or implicitly proscribed for them to do by the Constitution.

The Federal government, again, under the 'original Constitutional principles' you libertarians so love, is a government of enumerated and delegated powers. Unless prohibited by either express or implied Constitutional limitation, states can (or I should say, could) do whatever they wish to uphold the public order and the common good.

By striking down this law, the SCOTUS has merely reaffirmed the half-century drift towards making the Federal government a government of general jurisdiction, not of enumerated and delegated powers. Of course, libertarians are cheering, because they only care about states' rights when it's advantageous to invoke them in favor of pot, porn, or their friends the Gluteus Masochists.

[Lazamataz]

Libertarians are the cause of every evil known to man.