Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court

Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

[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.

[sinkspur]

Kevin, you're turning into a nattering scold.

The glass is always half-empty with you.

Even when I agree with you, you see a pony and you're looking for the pile.

Your slippery slope has now taken you into the legalization of murder, which makes me wonder if you've been drinking.

As John Riggins said to Judge O'Connor once, "Lighten up, Sandy."

[Cold Heat]

If I decide to have sex with a 12 year-old in my bedroom, that should be protected by the Right to Privacy according to the Supremes

No Pappy, that is statutory rape or child rape or child molestation with rape, depending on the state or the prosecutor.(say buh bye for many years)

What SCOTUS ruled on was the case before it. An arrest of two adult butt buddies during a consensual act in private. They threw the state statute that forbids sodomy between men out. The state curiously allowed sodomy between a male and female.

[rwfromkansas]

Interesting, but since Reagan would have opposed this ruling, it doesn't really matter.

[Cold Heat]

So, adultery laws are gone.

Audultry laws are related to the institution of marriage and justifying divorce in CIVIL court. It is not a criminal matter.

[Cold Heat]

That 17yr sentence was a crime in and of itself.

[joesbucks]

The role of the supreme court is to deicde what IS in the constitution and what NOT. In this case they decided that there is a right to privacy IN THE CONSTITUTION......THERE ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then please, show me where in the constitution it says "guns". Or for that matter where it says I can't have Weapons of Mass Destruction. All it mentions is a right to bare arms and a well regulated mititia. Haven't yet found the word guns, or star chucks, or dirty bombs or hand grenades or any such distinction, yet some people say the constitution guarantees the right carry a few of these items, while in the same breath they say that certain others can be legislated out my or others reach. I guess they imply there's some sort of inference as to what arms I can bare and those I can't. Maybe that's where the privacy argument comes in. An inference? A God given right?

[eno_]

Kevin, you're turning into a nattering scold.

He would say he was born that way. But as long as he keeps it in private - e.g. not raving in a public bathroom - I say let him be.

[proud American in Canada]

Re #13: bump!

[ladyinred]

The role of the supreme court is to deicde what IS in the constitution and what is NOT. In this case they decided that there is a right to privacy IN THE CONSTITUTION......THERE ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly what I was explaining to someone this morning. The Judicial system is way overstepping it's bounds these days. Amazing how many things people think are in the constitution that aren't at all! Perhaps schools need to go back to educating children about this document like they used to.

[Cold Heat]

You and I must have been arguing with some of the same people.LOL

It is interesting to see how ten different people see thing in ten different ways.

Some is due to ignorance, but after arguing a few issues the past couple of days, I find a lack of reasoning that apparently blinds well meaning people to the facts before them.

Then again, I may be totally full of crap!

[colorado tanker]

Adultery used to be a criminal matter in almost all states, along with sodomy and seduction. Most states have repealed those laws, but not all. All would appear unconstitutional now. Adultery is grounds for divorce in "fault" states, but is unnecessary in "no fault" divorce states.

[ladyinred]

Let me guess. Libertarian right?
You seem to forget that we are a nation of laws as well as freedom.

I for one am grateful we have the rule of law, too bad so few are these days, including the Judical branch of government.

The Supreme Court should only rule on constitutional issues that are actually in the document.

[ladyinred]

How can one support Big Government and call themselves a conservative.

This isn't an indication of Big Government in the first place!

[eno_]

We have a nation of far far far too many laws, and far too many people enforcing laws that do nothing to protect the public from real crime.

It wasn't that way when the nation was new. While this isn't the most attractive cause to start pruning back our laws, it's a good start.

[ladyinred]

Fighting for freedom and *having fun*"

Interesting perspective you have there.

[rabidralph]

I think I agree with you. I saw this ruling more as a victory for privacy, rather than a victory for homosexuals. The media is certainly portraying it as a homo victory, but I never viewed it that way. The larger issue was always about the police invading people's privacy. But what do I know, I'm just a government mule.

[Cold Heat]

Yes, I wondered if any states still had them.

On this topic, sodomy laws have been gradually disappearing as well. Most states have dumped them entirely.

That is why I was surprised to see the reaction to this decision. I have come to the conclusion that if the case had not involved gays, the decision would never have drawn this criticism and would have been hailed as a win for getting government out of the bedroom.

But, (bad choice of word) I see the contrary here with people advocating government intrusion into people private sexual activity even though not criminal in any way.

I see very few people affected by this ruling except for the two gays who got off. The gay community should have little to boast about, since states rarely ever enforce these laws in this way. They used sodomy largely in combination with other criminal charges regarding rape and non-consensual sex.

I believe the straight and normal people should be happy that the court struck down a intrusive and purposeless law, socially acceptable or not.

I am and remain perplexed.

[inquest]

Mass would not be required to recognize a Nevada marriage license, but if the couple are married in Nevada, that act would be recognized in Mass.

Seems like a pretty superficial difference. A marriage license is just as much a public record as a marriage certificate. In both cases they're essentially just statements that the law applies to the persons in question differently than it otherwise would. And it's up to the individual states to decide for themselves just how the law would apply (if at all) in such cases

The clause is self-executing, no Congressional legislation is required.

It may well be a matter of custom that states recognize marriages contracted in other states, just as they, in the vast majority of instances, recognize marriages contracted in foreign countries. But to my knowledge there's never been an instance wherein a state was challenged in federal court for refusing to grant legal sanction to a marriage from another state that failed to comply with its own marriage laws.

[djf]

Agreed. Ain't legal for my neighbor to look into my bedroom window, ain't right for the government either.

[dark_lord]

The problem with libertarians is they support big government as a way to limit small government.

I don't agree. In general small L libertarians are quite strong on the Constitution and the 10th amendment. So while they don't like the federal WOD, for example, a state or municipality that makes drugs illegal is fine.