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.

[Torie]

Well, same point. Inducing a minor to have gay sex might be more psychologically damaging to them, or be the factor that tips them over into going down the gay road, and the state might have a legitimate interest in discouraging that.

[AntiGuv]

Well, as I've stated previously, Kansas is perfectly permitted to argue accordingly & send the case on up to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. I have not personally taken any firm position with respect to how the SCOTUS would eventually rule if Limon ends up once again in its lap.

With my back against the wall, then I'd have to say that the Equal Protection rationale advanced in O'Connor's concurrence to Lawrence (which Kennedy pointedly left unresolved for future consideration as necessary) will prove controlling in the judgment of the Court.

[Torie]

Ya, but minors are involved here. That is a big difference, at least in my mind, vis a vis the Texas law which involved adult behavior.

[AntiGuv]

The question at hand [or at least in my above speculation] involves the penumbral minds of Justice Kennedy and/or Justice O'Connor. ;^)

[bvw]

It's sharp minds like yours that make me consider getting a law degree to run up against you.

[dogbyte12]

I think this is a mess though for the state to actually prove grounds.

Try arguing that a girl being anally assaulted is less damaging to her than a boy receiving oral favors might be difficult to prove clinically.

If there actually was some research that suggests this is the case, I am sure the court would entertain the greater good argument. The, we find it ickier for a boy to get oral sex, than a girl to be anally violated argument really doesn't have much legal weight. This law wasn't really well thought out it appears to me.

They could have made a law against anal sex, let it apply. Considering that most heterosexuals usually do vaginal sex, but still engage in the alternative, it wouldn't be totally discriminating, per se on it's face. Again, I see the Texas problem. Different rules for different receivers of anal sex must be not just punitive by class in nature. There must be a justification, as one could well argue between anal and vaginal sex risk wise.

[jwalsh07]

Your 315. Very well done. Thanks.

[AntiGuv]

An admirable goal!! (Getting a law degree, that is). Few will admit as much, but lawyers make the modern world go round. It's declared in the Magna Carta, or sumpin like that.. ;^)

[bvw]

If only some good number of lawyers were as sharp as you ... and many others are on FR too, except that you are the one that at the same time while not liking your points, I am appreciating the depth of intellect and awareness of the current legal reasoning mindset you must have to make them. The lawyers I've seen are too trained to be well-dressed floormats rather than active intellectual discussers. Not all -- not all -- but too many.

[Torie]

Damn. Now I'm jealous.

[A. Pole]

The fact of the matter is that same-sex marriage will come in one of two ways [assuming it comes via the SCOTUS]: (1) as an Equal Protection judgment;

Already both homosexuals and straight people have EXACTLY the same right - to marry one person of the opposite sex!

[leprechaun9]

There is a process of government called the Legislature that in many states have repealed these laws.

This decision has taken the dictatorial powers of Saddam and usurped them by six dictators in black robes! Several of these (mis)Justices recently handed down another decision that eliminated the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution!

[bvw]

Well, dang it, I am too.

[gitmo]

Neither of them was "unconstituntional." It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. By definition, their interpretation is correct, as the Constitution grants them that authority.

Where does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to be the interpreter for the Constitution?

[billbears]

Heck why not? Every other branch of the national government has ignored the 10th. Why not SCOTUS too, right?

[billbears]

I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.

And there's a difference between 'big' government and state government more times than not

[x]

I think we are better off making our laws through our elected representatives and not by court decisions. To be sure the court should step in where there are real violations of constitutional rights, but it's a mistake to short-circuit the political process to get judicial transformations of the law. I'm not quite as angry at the court as some are. There's something to be said for institutional continuity and loyalty, and their support for human rights at critical moments of our history is admirable.

But the way that the court has taken power from representative institutions is cause for concern, as is the growing influence of ideas of autonomy, identity, recognition, and self-affirmation. It seems to me that in bringing a new language to legal decisions they are writing their own ticket to greater power at the expense of the federal system and the beliefs of popular majorities and moving away from a traditional natural law view to a psychologized emphasis on self-realization or self-actualization that can be used to impose government restrictions as much as to remove them.

[AppyPappy]

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority.

Wouldn't that apply to laws against incest and age of consent?

[tpaine]

"The Supremes said the Right to Privacy supercedes state laws"
-sapap-



You argue against a right to privacy..
Our general rights to life, liberty, and property encompass ~all~ of our unenumerated and enumerated rights..
IE.. It is doubtful that any rational person would argue against our right to live a 'private' life, secure in our homes and persons.
- Thus, does it not reasonably follow:
- That we have an unenumerated, fundamental right to privacy, found under both the 9th & 14th amendments?
In the same way, we can find our right to keep arms in both the 2nd, and in the 14ths restriction that we can not be deprived of property without due process of law.

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority.
236 -tpaine-


AppyPappy wrote:
Wouldn't that apply to laws against incest and age of consent?


Nope. - Properly written, such laws would protect immature individuals from sexual predators, imo.
We can protect our young without infringing on our own liberties, pap.

[AppyPappy]

Your two statements seem to clash with one another.

Prohibitory state laws against behaviors or property can not be termed to be 'due process'. - They are simply the arbitrary rules of a majority. 236 -tpaine-

Which is EXACTLY what the Age of Consent laws do(it's a law against a behavior) vs Nope. - Properly written, such laws would protect immature individuals from sexual predators, imo. We can protect our young without infringing on our own liberties, pap.

I don't see how you can endorse laws against behaviors while swearing they are an invasion of privacy. It would seem to me that state laws are enacted to limit "bad" behaviors that affect society, like sodomy in public parks and restrooms.