SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[The Red Zone]

I thought you were better than this.

Hittin' #5 with consistency.

[Treebeard]

Are they the reason the leaves on my habanero pepper plant are curling up at the edges too? Is there a spray for that?

[dead]

Yes, otherwise it'd be mob rule.

Ahh. Finally I’m starting to get through and educate you. This should have been done for you sometime in grammar school.

Anyone who believes this is about the right to privacy also has to believe that abortion is about the right to privacy.

I don’t want to tax your brain too much on a day when we’ve made so much progress, but the difference between the two issues should be too obvious to miss. In fact, only an absolute moron, or a liberal, could fail to see it.

When a man buggers another man who agrees to be buggered, and they do it in the privacy of their own home, there is no victim. It is a rather disgusting act, if you ask me, but that’s their business.

When a doctor sucks a fetus from a woman’s womb, the victim can be found in the garbage can next to the operating table. One day, hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize this undeniable fact.

[Teacher317]

I should have pinged you to post 539 as well.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Could we just get Kennedy to recuse himself from those cases?"

I would support that. He's never going to ride the sodomy card into the CJ's chair.

[OWK]

A right exists regardless of whether, or not, it can be guaranteed by the govm't. Govm'ts role is to protect rights, but there can be no guarantees.

An important distinction.

But I was hoping to address the more fundamental question.

What ARE rights?

How do we know what we SHOULD consider a right, and what we should not?

[88keys]

when the unwashed masses want to take your guns away, don’t go crying about your rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right, unlike "privacy rights" or various other "rights" that have been more or less "judicially legislated" under the guise of protecting "life, liberty" etc...

The point is, if it's not a guaranteed specific "right", then it's under the law, and the judiciary is not supposed to be making laws.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This thread is just getting silly now. Blackjack's taking it into stupidland with all the pedo talk.

[Treebeard]

Yes, but your refrigerator didn't fart when you took meat out of it. That's more the topic of this thread. ;)

[tdadams]

You must practice hours a day just to be that daft. Kennedy expressly addressed that this only has bearing on adult behavior, not on minors, not pedophilia. Get a grip.

[LizardQueen]

Are they the reason the leaves on my habanero pepper plant are curling up at the edges too? Is there a spray for that?

No, but Libertarians do cause late blight on tomato plants. Try mulching heavily, it makes it harder for them to get to the plants.

LQ

[MJY1288]

Winning a flame war on the internet is like winning a medal at the Special Olympics....... Sure it's cool, but you're still a retard :-)

[Liberal Classic]

I tend to think the SCOUS was right for the wrong reasons.

[tpaine]

HumanaeVitae
The 'individual rights' that are listed in the Bill of Rights were voted on at one time, dead. They can be changed by...voting. If you believe that 'individual rights' are whatever you believe them to be, then that's another discussion entirely. The thing that gives us 'individual rights' was voted on at one time.
-402-


The Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers explicitly state that the enumeration of Rights in the Constitution by no means limits the number of Rights we have. Also, they cannot be changed by "voting". They can only be changed by a Constitutional Convention (and the next one of those is going to be a terrifying event. The Left no longer cares about propriety, and will go after everything).
417 -T317-


In Marbary V Madison [1803],
Justice Marshall says that the 'fundamentals' of our constitution cannot be changed without, in effect, voiding the contract.
Fundamental rights [such as the RKBA's, or the right to live a private life] can NOT be changed by...voting.

[toothless]

"Yes there is, you just want to ignore it because it destroys your idiotic arguments."

Its you who has no argument. Why else would you keep using strawmen that were explicitly addressed in the decision?

[Jeff Gordon]

Grow up and read the decision.

Oh my! Such lofty expectations you have from the knuckle draggers.

[LanPB01]

This thread has once again proved the fact that people whose legal knowledge comes from "Matlock" and "The Practice" should leave law to the lawyers. Sure, everyone should read the constitution and know some basic facts about how government works. However, they should also realize their limitations.

[Dead Corpse]

Sooner or later someone will insist it is their fundamental right to engauge in behavior YOU find abhorant.

If their behavior isn't infringing on my Rights, then why the hell should I care what they do? If they are committing force, fraud, or theft against me... then they will have to answer to my personal protection equipement first. If they survive that, then I will go before the courts to have them prosecuted.

Getting the government to pass a law against nose picking is NOT the way this country is set up to run.

[OWK]

Thank you for that momentary lapse into the refuge of reason.