Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court
Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudiciary; activistsupremecourt; aganda; barfalert; blahblahblah; buhbye; conservatives; courtlegislation; dontletthedoorhityou; downourthroats; dusrupter; federalizeeverything; freedom; gay; gayagenda; homosexual; homosexualagenda; individualliberty; judicialfiat; lawrencevtexas; lessgovernment; liberty; moron; nakedpowergrab; peckerhead; readtheconstitution; samesexdisorder; strikeupthebanned; tenthamendmentdeath; thisaccountisbanned; troll; vikingkitties; wholecloth; whoneedsfederalism; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-348 next last
To: eno_
"Or look at it this way: Buggery has been around since Man came down fromt the trees"

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.

41 posted on 06/28/2003 1:13:18 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
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.

Yeah, "right of privacy" has you control freaks all in a tizzy.

42 posted on 06/28/2003 1:13:24 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord; TommyDale; Coronal
Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas

That case is on this thread. (For anyone who might not be familiar with it)

43 posted on 06/28/2003 1:14:04 PM PDT by csvset (White Devil for Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: shred
Since gay activist groups are already planning to use Justice Scalia's scathing dissent as a basis for suing for "more equality" I stand by my prediction that this was a BAD desicion which will have repercussions on everything from taxes to health insurance. The laqsuit game has just begun.

"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"

44 posted on 06/28/2003 1:15:33 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

45 posted on 06/28/2003 1:16:03 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (The voices tell me to stay home and clean the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Frankly, Lawrence legalized prostitution nation wide.

I think it is more likely to end up being applied to private drug use than prostitution.

46 posted on 06/28/2003 1:17:31 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
What's really interesting is that people call me a neocon...but I can quote the Constitution and they can only spin it.
47 posted on 06/28/2003 1:18:22 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shred
It isn't the elements of the case itself. It is the fact that this was a matter that should have been resolved by the people through their individuual state legislatures.
48 posted on 06/28/2003 1:19:27 PM PDT by Az Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shred
I tend to agree.

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)

49 posted on 06/28/2003 1:21:43 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Not Fooled
Who are you working for anyways?

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.

50 posted on 06/28/2003 1:23:41 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: templar
"I think it is more likely to end up being applied to private drug use than prostitution."

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.

51 posted on 06/28/2003 1:24:35 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
I think the distinction they were paying attention to here was Public vs. Private. Remember, a few years back, they declined to order the Boy Scouts to admit gays, and rightly so. The Guttner(sp?) decision was about a University, which receives public money, and therefore must make some accomodations, it has a duty to serve the public, not one particular individual.
52 posted on 06/28/2003 1:27:01 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: shred
I can see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, I don't want the government telling adults what they can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. On the other hand, it seems that this is just another step down the slippery slope of immorality. Guess I'll pray and leave it all in God's hands.
53 posted on 06/28/2003 1:29:24 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
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.

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.)

54 posted on 06/28/2003 1:29:33 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: djf
Yes, I agree with that statement.

I believe it was O'connor who's decision was based on the unfairness in the Texas statute.

55 posted on 06/28/2003 1:30:06 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: shred
"In a few years, all the gnashing of teeth and wailing over this one will seem, in retrospect, to be much ado over nothing."

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.

56 posted on 06/28/2003 1:31:02 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
You do not have to be a big government conservative to thoroughly disapprove of the Lawrence decision. Lawrence was a long step towards tyranny by the federal courts.
57 posted on 06/28/2003 1:32:34 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Yeah, "right of privacy" has you control freaks all in a tizzy

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.


58 posted on 06/28/2003 1:32:35 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
A good horse whipping on Kennedy and O'Connor would be a good start. God, I can't wait for her to retire. She has been a total embarassment lately. Maybe it's the drugs she is taking.
59 posted on 06/28/2003 1:34:26 PM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
There is no consitutional right to privacy.

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.

60 posted on 06/28/2003 1:35:36 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-348 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson