SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[B Knotts]

Just to clear things up, I was talking about Kennedy's opinion (though Justice Scalia's discussion of it).

[SwinneySwitch]

SAD!:^{

[Liberal Classic]

I like Scalia. I don't always agree with him but I like him. I wish we had more like him on the bench. Heck, I wish we had more like him at every level of government.

[jethropalerobber]

The people of Texas have no say, yet they will pay the tab for all the social results. They should be able to bill The 6 Supremes to enforced this on them.

what "social results" are you referring to? bill them for what exactly?

is this the point where you use socialism to justify your intrusive moralizing?

[ffusco]

Is she hot? Just kidding.

[The Red Zone]

Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

One thing Thomas apparently didn't note is how rarely this happens, inherently because the 4th Amendment makes it so difficult to ascertain. Doesn't sound to me like a lot of cop time was being blown on such endeavors.

[The Red Zone]

I am being facetious, chum.

[OWK]

He has addressed it, in a roundabout way. See #597

I saw 597.

It doesn't address the question at all.

I didn't ask what he believes the source of rights to be.

I ask specifically what those rights are.

What do rights include?

What are their limitations?

By what measure do we determine what is a right, and what is not?

I want a specific yardstick.

It should be a fairly easy question.

[B Knotts]

I generally like Justice Scalia, too, but Justice Thomas is my favorite.

[Antoninus]

I vote 1913. If a person does not have the right to the fruits of his own labor, and those proceeds can be used against him (eminent domain, etc), then he is not a free citizen.

You're probably right. But the mask is off today. The Constitution is dead. Long live the all-powerful Supreme Court!

[huck von finn]

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

I've seen heterosexual couples doing it in a park. Does that count? Maybe I'm not quite the voyeur I should be.

[kegler4]

"JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly."

Interesting to note that Thomas actually thinks Texas (and the other states) shouldn't have such a law. Guess Thomas isn't quite as "moral" as some of you thought.

[B Knotts]

Unquestionably, enforcement of such laws are rare. I think Thomas makes a good point, though, that the court should not be trying to take the place of the legislature.

[Roscoe]

And the Court's left wing legislated into existence a new "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions..."

Fascinating.

[ffusco]

Not ready to move to Shelbyville!

[B Knotts]

Morality and legality are often (but not always) two very different things.

[CholeraJoe]

You people better try to silence us quickly..

Please bear in mind that I am neither gay nor liberal. I believe all human beings need to be treated with decency and compassion irrespective of their religion, skin color, health status or sexual orientation. To do otherwise conjures up images of swastikas and burning crosses.

[Roscoe]

Ginsberg and Souter voted pro-anal

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the prduct of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."
-- Justice Scalia

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Homer Simpson voice-> "MMMMMMmmmmmmmm....sodomy."

So, the queers won a victory today that allows them to use each other's anuses as vaginas.

In the words of John Cougar Mellenhead, "Ain't that America somethin' to see, baby..."

[GraniteStateConservative]

Scalia would allow masturbation to be made illegal, too.

In fact, he can't think of many outrageous laws the states could come up with that he'd rule unconstitutional-- turning us into a banana republic. Presumably, Scalia also thought the Constitution needed the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery. He'd probably have sided with Taney and not Justice Curtis or McLean in Dred Scott v. Sandford. How the Party of Lincoln could be proud of that, I'm not sure.

We'll just add about a million amendments to the Constitution outlawing all the stupid things states may try to outlaw or force upon its citizens.

"You have been found guilty of having not thrown salt over your shoulder after having a black cat cross your path. Off to prison with you!"

How can anyone here at FR applaud this crap?