Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court

Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

[dinodino]

Are you kidding me?

[TommyDale]

Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.)

If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

[PaulJ]

I think Boortz said it best in his latest:

"My view on this Supreme Court decision is strictly libertarian. No action taken by a human being should be considered a crime by the state unless that action deprives another human being of their life, liberty or property through either force or fraud. Two consenting adults participating in the sexual act of their choice in a private setting deprives no other person of their right to life, liberty or property. Nobody is harmed, nobody is defrauded. I do not want the government in my bedroom. If I don’t want the government in my bedroom then what is the justification for asking the government to go regulate someone else’s sexual conduct? "

[rwfromkansas]

The only freepers tired of it are LIBERTARIANS.

And this is a conservative news forum, not a libertarian news forum.

So, the people who are upset are people that really don't matter.

[Not Fooled]

Well obviously that's what you meant... But riddle me this..

How are you getting paid for your quick wit when you couldn't pick up on the fact that I was simply responding in kind to your comment aimed towards shred?

Who are you working for anyways?

[jlogajan]

even if you think a right to privacy is a good idea, that's not the point. IT ISN"T IN THE CONSTITUTION period.

Well, if it the Constitution you are on about, then you are wrong. The Constitution gives the courts authority to interpret the Constitution. To check and balance that power, the Constitution gives the legislative and executive branches other powers, and the people the power to amend the Constitution. Since there is no groundswell of either the executive or legislative branches nor the people in general clamering for a Constitutional amendment, there is NO Constitutional crisis, and therefore the interpretation of the Court stands on valid Constitutional grounds.

Now you have a different opinion but if your complaint is solely along Constitutional grounds, you are mistaken. You may have religious or ideological reasons -- but that is different than Constitutional reasons.

[rwfromkansas]

By the way, the ruling actually increased big government by telling the states what they can do.

[Havisham]

When the court majority overtakes the legislative process the result is instability. Instability threatens liberty.

Have you read Sowell's 'Vision of the Anointed' or 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice'? I think you would find these at least intellectually rewarding even if you disagree with the analysis.

[Coronal]

If you're referring to the case I think you are, the perpetrator was 19. If his victim had been female, he would have had a much shorter sentence He deserves to be punished for his actions, but the double standard is wrong.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Then you have no idea what happened. This was a trampling of the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers. This is a naked power grab by the SCOTUS at the expense of the states and of the people.

The reasoning of the decision is based on the broad, vague, and new-found Constitutional principle of the "expression of essential humanity," and will serve as the fulcrum by which the increasing power of the federal government is leveraged in unimaginable ways in the future.

[eno_]

Yeah, there's a winning position: "You home is your castle except: a) For tax enforcement; b) Because nobody should have stranger sex than I do; c) Because you shouldn't smoke pot either; d) Hey! That blow job is sodomy, too; e) You might be gambling on the Internet; Etc." That about sums up JBT-oriented Taliban Republicanism.

Or look at it this way: Buggery has been around since Man came down fromt the trees, but tax withholding has only been around since WWII. Which do you think we ought to try to eradicate?

[jlogajan]

If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear.

I think that was the point. The punishment for hetero underage sex was much less.

[dark_lord]

Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.) If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

Two comments on this. The first is -- I find it amusing that the punishment for a guy that apparently likes to give oral sex to men is to be sent to prison. Talk about brother rabbit being tossed into the briar patch! The second things is -- in that state, oral sex on a 14 year old girl by a 17 year old guy would have been a maximum sentence of 3 years. This guy had already served 3 years. That is why he was let out.

[jlogajan]

By the way, the ruling actually increased big government by telling the states what they can do.

It reduces the power of both the states and the federal government to tell citizens what they can do.

[eno_]

Name one unenumerated right.

Now name another one.

Keep that up for a little bit.

Now do you think privacy is excluded? How about in light of explicit protection against unreasonable search?

The specifics of this case was that the defendants were busted for buggery after a neighbor complained about them. A more sceptical approach to barging into people's lives on the part of police is a very good idea.

[shred]

I agree with you on both counts. They were correct in the Texas case, but they were attempting to have government engineer an outcome (utilizing an utterly unconstitutional methodology, imho) in the Michigan case.

Having said that, these guys were mostly appointed by Republican presidents, and I'd be hard pressed to figure out how we are going to get more conservative, liberty minded justices. We certainly don't want a Democrat Prez appointing them!

[GrandMoM]

....as I can see by the other posts and your answer to them, you in fact were not kidding, but this is the biggest joke ever,****I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.....go back to high school and try to learn the difference between a conservative and a liberal this time!!!!

[onyx]

W-O-W babe, you're on a roll! :-)

[jlogajan]

try to learn the difference between a conservative and a liberal

He meant conservative in the individualist freedom sense, not conservative in the fundamentalist American Taliban sense.

[TommyDale]

"... I find it amusing that the punishment for a guy that apparently likes to give oral sex to men is to be sent to prison. "

The recipient of this pervert's unnatural affection was a 14 year old boy, not a man. And if it had been my 14 year old, the perpetrator would not have gone to prison -- I would have punished him personally. Use your imagination on that one.