SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[Teacher317]

Should the SCOTUS void a states anti-nose picking law, hypothetically? Or do states have the right to pass silly laws?

SCOTUS really should have that "Stupid, but Constitutional" ink stamp.

[HumanaeVitae]

I don't know about your history, but none of the 10 Amendments is particularly offensive. The fictiticious "Privacy Amendment" is a tad annoying, however.

[VRWC_minion]

The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

So, If I put my 17 year old daughter on the pill we can then have sex.

[The KG9 Kid]

I hope that the SCOTUS uses the same 'privacy' logic to apply to 2nd Amendment issues based on the 5th & 9th Circuit Courts' recent decisions, should the high court ever stop ignoring the issue.

Everywhere in the USA, consenting adults can keep their sexual relations private. What's not to like?

[kegler4]

"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."


In case it hasn't already been pointed out, it's not just anal -- it includes oral sex. So you want the state to also outlaw oral sex between consenting heterosexuals???

[NeoCaveman]

SCOTUS really should have that "Stupid, but Constitutional" ink stamp.

I tend to agree.

[tomahawk]

We're not "simpletons" to believe that the Constitution doesn't prohibit laws on the books for 140 years that say that buggery is illegal. We're constitutionalists.

[tpaine]

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.
568 -88k-



The 14th addressed our specific rights to 'life liberty, and property':

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
[See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
    
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

[Grando Calrissian]

It always strikes me as odd that the heartland is the center of gay activism, and not SF, NYC or LA. I'm sure it's a plot or something.

It's all part of the gay conspiracy. You can look it up in the "American Gay Agenda, 3rd Addition" on page 467.

[Antoninus]

What this idiotic decision says, basically, is that the Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution then went home and created unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws.

All hail the Supreme Court! Our fearless cultural dictators!

[bk1000]

"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."

To an extent I agree, but a reality check tells me we don't really want unlimited 'rights'....but what do I know? This decision came frome the same bunch of people that just decided it was OK to discriminate against white people.
Heck, I thought that was wrong too!

[The Red Zone]

A very strong, simple, and supportable Equal Protection argument.

Which wasn't elucidated by the court.

[Trace21230]

Yessirree - everyone is going to drop what they're doing and run right out to have sex with dogs!

hehehe, we better guard the mortuaries too, not to mention the slaughterhouses

They're very shrill today, aren't they?

Trace

[Antoninus]

It may have set the stage for an amendment to the constitution.

I'm ready. It's time for a Marriage Amendment. Is there any doubt it would pass???

Let's get moving on it!

[tomahawk]

Don't count on it. The ACLU's agenda is in control of the majority of the "Justices".

[CholeraJoe]

is that the Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution then went home and created unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws.

As well as unconstitutional laws denying women and blacks the right to vote and perpetuating slavery.

[The Red Zone]

The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

But what if she takes the pill? Then is it OK?

[OWK]

But it is a very white day for germs and diseases nationwide.

Criminalize the common cold now!

[BlazingArizona]

No, it's the whole truth. Libertarians are cheering the usurpation of the legislative powers reserved to the states by an all-powerful federal governmental body. The federal leviathan has spoken through SCOTUS and the libertarians are applauding.

What the majority is saying is that there are certain personal rights that no government, on any level, can infringe. It is not a matter of liberal political correctness or favoritism to one group, since you are just as free to dislike homosexuality and/or refuse to engage in "sodomy" as you were before. Because the decision expands individual freedom, it's a huge victory for conservatives. It limits government intrusion into our private lives.

[tomahawk]

Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there.