The role of the supreme court is not to come up with good ideas or mediate between right and wrong, or decide between conservative and liberal.
Your post indicates that the so-called conservative "policy" handed down was consistent with FR beliefs. I won't even debate tha point.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was a dumb ass decision -- even if you think a right to privacy is a good idea, that's not the point. IT ISN"T IN THE CONSTITUTION period.
What they did was legislate, as liberal judges have been doing for too damn long.
Hit the road Jack, the Lawrence decision was inconssiten with what most FReepers believe in.
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.
The right to privacy doesn't have to be in the constitution for it to exist. Read Amendment nine from the constitution below:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The constitution and our bill of rights is not meant to be a laundry list of what we have the right to do. The bill of rights was added to our constitution because these were the overriding concerns of people at that time. And they wanted to gurantee that the government would not deny them these rights.
The right to privacy is one of our natural, inherent rights. For example, even if the right to free speech was not listed in the bill of rights, it would still exist.
If enough busy-bodies such as yourself keep protesting though, we might have to add the right to privacy to our list of rights, since some people refuse to recognize it.
I don't think this point is quite so clear as you make it out to be. First invasion of privacy derives is a common law tort that is a lot older than our constitution, and we adopted English Common Law pretty much wholesale as our legal foundation. Second, the prohibition against unreasonable searches was designed to protect just exactly what if not primarily your right to privacy? Unreasonable searches is exactly how the government does invade your right to privacy, or did until the electronic spying industry created other ways to do it as well. As the ninth ammedment states, the enumerated rights shall not disparage other rights retained by the people.
Hit the road Jack, the Lawrence decision was inconsisent with what most FReepers believe in.
How very very eloquently stated. First you dismiss him with an order, then you make a statement for which you could have no possible evidence absent a rather comprehensive polling of Freepers.
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?
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.
Actually, the SCOTUS invoked the right to privacy nearly 40 years ago in Griswald v. Connecticut, which prohibited the states from interfering with the most basic and private rights concerning human sexuality and intimacy. The right to privacy is not new by any means, only its application to gay people.