Posted on 06/28/2003 12:38:52 PM PDT by shred
I think there are many Freepers who are tired of this constant bashing of the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas. I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.
Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state. It disturbs me that there are so many who wanted to see the state prevail in its desire to regulate private, individual freedoms.
I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.
You're correct that the left argued that the Supreme Court should use the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn state laws in the fifties, the sixties, etc. But even before that it was the conservatives who argued in favor of the Supreme Court giving the Fourteenth Amendment an expansive interpretation during the early part of the last century to strike down state regulations on business. Neither side has been consistent historically.
My point is that today I'm seeing conservatives who argue in favor of an aggressive Supreme Court in the area of state college admissions policies express profound shock that the same Supreme Court might dare interfere with state criminal laws concerning private sexual conduct.
I'd like to see the Supreme Court exercise a little more self-restraint in both areas. I'd like to see our states have some more room for experimentation.
And I'd like to see more conservatives develop a more consistent approach to how they think the Supreme Court should function in our society.
Holy Kryptonite! Enjoy. :)
Deliberately so. If it had, it would have been dead a very long time ago.
I say go read the Constitution, learn something about State's rights, and then come back. Sheesh.
That full faith and credit shall be given does not, in itself, mean that the states are required to alter their laws to accomodate the documentation from other states. It only means that, consistently with their own laws, the states must treat documentation from other states the same way it treats its own documentation. Hence, a marriage license from Hawaii between two men is only good in California to the extent that its laws allow men to marry each other.
If certain restrictions on marriage (such as age restrictions) can be evaded by going to Nevada or Utah or someplace like that, that's only because either the other states have agreed to allow it, or because Congress has mandated it, pursuant to the second sentence of the Section that you quoted.
I'm pinging our resident legal expert, just in case I'm mistaken about this, in which case I'll just have to hit the books again.
Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, June 27 — In one of the first consequences of its landmark ruling on gay rights on Thursday, the Supreme Court today set aside the lengthy prison sentence imposed on a gay Kansas teenager for having had sex with a younger boy. In a brief order with little elaboration, the court vacated the 17-year sentence imposed in 2000 on the defendant, Matthew Limon, and returned the case to the Kansas courts "for further consideration in light of Lawrence v. Texas." The case of Lawrence v. Texas, which was decided on Thursday and overturned an Texas antisodomy law, upheld the constitutional right of gay people to engage in sexual activity in private. The court's directive today that the Kansas courts reconsider the Limon case with Lawrence v. Texas in mind was tantamount to an instruction to set aside the prison term imposed on Mr. Limon, and perhaps to take a close look at what has been called the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law." The statute gained that nickname in some legal circles because it regards oral sex differently when it involves heterosexual teenage couples, as opposed to youths of the same sex. When one member of the couple is aged 14 to 16 and the other is older, the act is statutory rape under the Kansas law and the most common penalty is probation if the two are heterosexual. But probation is not available to same-sex teenage couples. Matthew Limon was one week past his 18th birthday in early 2000 when he performed oral sex on a 14-year-old boy at the center for developmentally disabled young people where they both lived. No violence or coercion was involved. Had Mr. Limon performed oral sex on a 14-year-old girl, he could have received a prison sentence of about 15 months, and possibly just probation. Instead, he is now about three years into a 17-year sentence in the Ellsworth Correctional Facility. Under his sentence, he was also ordered to register as a sex offender upon his release.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/politics/27CND-SCOTUS.html?hp
What I'm saying, moron, is that the Kansas law in question would have treated that situation far differently, and would have allowed discretion had that been a heterosexual 18 year old boy with a 14 year old girl - and appropriately, I'll add.
And don't even start by pretending that that an 18 year old and a 14 year old are in the same category as a 50 year old and a 14 year old.
Thats what judicial discretion is about.
In what way?
I agree. And it gives me great pleasure hearing all the moral crusaders wail and gnash their teeth over this.
In the words of Nelson Muntz, "Ha ha!"
The clause is self-executing, no Congressional legislation is required.
Congress has legislated under the clause, however, in the Defense of Marriage Act, which is designed to block the scenario I outlined. I just don't see how the DOMA can survive the reasoning of the recent case. On the other hand, O'Connor doesn't see the need to employ consistent reasoning from case to case, so DOMA might be safe after all.
Also the State of TX gave valid reason for their law and backed it up with precident. The SCOTUS said they did not and also tossed much of it simply, because it demeaned homos.
This is not a victory for Freedom, because Freedom requires that the truth reign. This is a victory for BS artists and the rule of arbitrary tyrants. It's not Freedom they supported, it's socialism.
"I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing."
Look at it this way. If you are right, then I can hire a killer in the privacy of my own home and be free of any legal sanction, because it's a private matter and any law against hiring killers would demean my character.
BYW, the individual liberty you're concerned with, does it involve something for your head?
Imagine if the holding were extended this way. Then Dave Barry could write a humorous column saying, "I'm sure that if the Supreme Court makes it okay to murder someone in the privacy of the home, a vast army of Americans will start killing people will-nilly in the home."
And the once-levelheaded sinkspur could marvel and guffaw over the truly inspired wisdom of that foppish nabob of nyuk, Dave Barry.
It actually was in RoevWade. I included the hired killer, because of the consent problem. In Roe, the hired killer is off too, the fact the that the victim did not give consent was brushed over by announcing that the victim was a nonviable tissue mass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.