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.
So has homocide.
"...tax withholding has only been around since WWII."
Same with laws governing the sale of uraniam and plutoniom abroad...what's your point?
My point is that SCOTUS has basically vacated the 10th Amendment with this decision.
Yeah, "right of privacy" has you control freaks all in a tizzy.
That case is on this thread. (For anyone who might not be familiar with it)
"Standing of States to Represent Their Citizens.--The right of a State to sue as parens patriae, in behalf of its citizens, has long been recognized.381 No State, however, may be parens patriae of her citizens ''as against the Federal Government.''382 But a State may sue on behalf of the economic welfare of its citizens to protect them from environmental harm383 and to enjoin other States and private parties from engaging in actions harmful to the economic or other well- being of its citizens.384 The State must be more than a nominal party without a real interest of its own, merely representing the interests of particular citizens who cannot represent themselves;385 it must articulate an interest apart from those of private parties that partakes of a ''quasi-sovereign interest'' in the health and well-being, both physical and economic, of its residents in general, although there are suggestions that the restrictive definition grows out of the Court's wish to constrain its original jurisdiction and may not fit such suits brought in the lower federal courts"
Conservatives, small government lovers are tired of it.
The only people who aren't tired of it are the Neofascist religious right, who want to tell other people how to run their lives.
The only single difference between y'all and socialists is the list of things you want people locked up for.
So9
I think it is more likely to end up being applied to private drug use than prostitution.
These antiquated sodomy laws are not based on sound legal footing, but are the product of human social prohibitions.
The Texas version was particularly bad because it only covered sodomy between two males and nothing else. It was not applied fairly to begin with.
There are but 12 or 13 states that still have these things on the books.
I see this as no big deal and certainly no big win for the gay population either. prosecution of sodomy laws between consenting adult was practically unheard of until this case. I believe there was one other in Wisconsin or someplace.
The court did ok by me and I am far from a gay rights supporter nor do I even think about them much.(except when they get in my face)
I choose to remain anonymous when I engage in free-wheeling discussion of MY views. When I make political comments in public under my own name, those comments then become associated with the person I work for.
If I told you who I work for then he/she would have my views associated with him/her. It's not fair, but that's what happens in the public policy arena.
It'll be applied to everything. And IMO the only reason the libertarians are supporting it is the private drug use thing. The legal challenges haven't even started yet. We know the gay activists are planning on suing for more "equality" under this ruling. Polygamists, prostitutes and those who LUUUUUUV their pets and NAMBLA won't be far behind.
Actually you are the one who is mistaken. There is no consitutional right to privacy. My views on the act in question aren't relevant to a constitutional discussion. (but if you must know I think it's vile, immoral and disgusting.)
I believe it was O'connor who's decision was based on the unfairness in the Texas statute.
Yes, it's part of that slippery slope of immorality this nation is skidding down.
Some years ago,what we see on TV daily was considered shocking.
I'm a decentralized power freak, actually. In any case, privacy is not the basis of this ruling. It's the newly discovered "right" of the "expression of essential humanity."
Do you have any idea what that means? I don't, nor do I believe that there is anything approaching a consensus on that, or whether it's really even a "right." It's a complete fabrication by Kennedy and the majority to get the outcome they wanted, regardless of the Constitution or stare decisis.
But there is. You may not like that the Court is Constitutionally given the necessary power to interpret the Constitution -- but they have been -- and therefore their decisions are the law of the land, unless challenged by the legistlative, executive, and citizens of the US -- primarily by Constitutional amendment.
Procedure was properly followed -- at least to the point that no amendment seems to be arising from the other branches.
If you accept the Constitution, you have to accept the procedures it lays out for its interpretation and enforcement.
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.