U.S. Supreme Court rewrites Constitution and 3,000 years of history

Alliance Defense Fund | 6/26/03 | Richard K. Jefferson

[Technogeeb]

Your citation for this info, please? (The wording for my post came direct from the Supreme Court opinion's syllabus, in case you're wondering where I got my information.)

I don't have a cite, because none of the news sources ever seemed interested in it. Go talk to the Sherrif's deputies that made the arrest. The person that made the false report was Roger David Nance, another homosexual. The deputies should confirm that the two individuals in this case refused to stop (they were engaged in sodomy when the duputies entered the residence) and answer the deputies questions; the deputies had no choice but to arrest them. The gay community in Houston has been trying to find a case like this for years so they could get the law overturned. Because they couldn't find one, they conspired to make one. I seriously doubt if the details will ever be publicly known (just like Roe v. Wade; which was also a case based on lies).

[CobaltBlue]

>>they are no longer impartial arbiters of what the law says, but have become participants in the political process<<

They aren't and never have been. You can predict how pretty much all of the US Supreme Court justices will vote, based on their political philosophy. I am a lawyer, took several classes on various aspects of constitutional law both undergrad and law school. It gets to the point where it's fairly easy. O'Connor and Kennedy are harder to predict.

It's been that way since the beginning. Marshall, one of the most important Federalist judges, shaped the entire court according to Federalist principles, q.v. Marbury vs. Madison, and another 30 years of opinion that firmly centered power in the federal government. McCulloch vs. Maryland, which upheld the power to establish a national bank. Hamiltonian vision all the way.

Then take a look at Taney, who helped Jackson dismantle the second Bank of the United States, and wrote the Dred Scott decision, which declared that no slave or former slave could be a plaintiff in federal court because they were not citizens of the United States. Dred Scott was one of the triggers to the Civil War. Taney believed in state's rights, and he did everything he could to promote that vision.

Read the saga of substantive due process if you want a quick-and-easy lesson on partisan opinion writing.

No, impartial arbiters of the law they have never been.

[colorado tanker]

I disagree. There have been long periods in the Court's history when the Court mostly kept it's nose out of politics and enjoyed great respect. One such era was after the Court stopped using substantive due process to strike down New Deal legislation up to the Warren Court. The Erie decision was an admirable exercise in restraint, requiring the federal courts to bow to the states in matters of state law. For decades substantive due process was a discredited approach.

Then came the Warren Court. The Brown decision was a good one, reversing the activist opinion that approved segregation despite the plain language of the equal protection clause. But soon the Court couldn't resist legislating on issues like state legislatures redistricting.

You cite to some of the periods in the past when the Court went down the same road. The Dred Scott case was a terrible example of judicial activism with Taney just making things up. In some ways Taney and O'Connor share common characteristics in that both want to use judicial activism to build what they think will be a popular legacy. O'Connor should give the comparison some thought.

[jwalsh07]

The real danger, however, is that because their decisions cannot be reviewed in the normal political process, they push people who disagree toward protest and violence. I submit that if abortion had been kept in the political process, as the Constitution clearly intends, we would not have seen the violence we've seen over the last 30 years. Activist courts are anti-democratic and endanger the future of our Republic.

Very astute observation and we can now look forward to another thirty years of culture wars.

The irony is that Kennedy used Roe as precedent. In one respect, that Kennedy and the majority blithely ignored, the Roe precedent applies and that is the unrest you spoke about above.

[SSN558]

"Its no longer a slippery slope. Its a free fall."

The Supreme court fails to take into account the Judeo-Christian basis for our law system. They have traded off some of their credibility and legitimacy for the temporary benefits of political correctness.

[colorado tanker]

The Court seemed to think that once they spoke on abortion in Roe the country would bow to their reasoning and "move on" since the decision had been made. Didn't happen. The Court started a culture war. I fear the Court is sitting in the same kind of wonderland today and they have no idea what they just did. My personal observation is that more people are more passionate about the gay rights and marriage issue than about abortion. They have no clue what they just did.

[jwalsh07]

You are correct. My son in laws are apolitical but talk of homosexual marriage sets them off like HE.

[aristeides]

Kennedy's Lawrence opinion yesterday purported just to be about striking down criminal punishment of the homosexual acts of consenting adults. Its application in Liman today shows that it has immediate implications for cases involving sex with minors, and that Kennedy knew that when he wrote his opinion.

[jwalsh07]

No doubt. Thanks.

[jde1953]

" I don't have a cite, because none of the news sources ever seemed interested in it."

All I can find is that it "was probably a personality conflict between the caller and the people in the apartment." From the Los Angeles Times: "What Nance probably never imagined, though, was that the two actually would get arrested."

That the pair decided to fight the law indicates that they realized they had an opportunity to do so, but it's hardly evidence of a ho-mo-sex-u-al conspiracy.

[Technogeeb]

All I can find is that it "was probably a personality conflict between the caller and the people in the apartment." From the Los Angeles Times: "What Nance probably never imagined, though, was that the two actually would get arrested."

I'll give you a few more details about the people involved (unfortunately; again no cites because the media doesn't seem to think this stuff is newsworthy. But if you want to check up on it yourself you can verify everything below. It might make a decent book one day depending on who wins the culture wars).

These two defendants are not the "nice innocent people just wanting to be left alone" being portrayed by the media. Talk to the deputies and/or go to the Harris county court records. You will find Tyron Garner has arrests for assault (two convictions, one in 2000 while this case was under appeal), drunk driving, drug possession (marijuana / crack), etc., as well as protective orders against him for some pretty outrageous acts (beating people with hoses and sexually assaulting them while being high on crack cocaine). Lawrence is a murderer (murder by automobile conviction in 1967), and also a drunk driver (two convictions) just like Garner.

That the pair decided to fight the law indicates that they realized they had an opportunity to do so, but it's hardly evidence of a ho-mo-sex-u-al conspiracy.

They refused to stop having anal sodomy even after the deputies demanded that they stop to answer questions, until the deputies were forced to arrest them on that charge. Ask yourself; if you were in your home with your wife and police broke in, would you continue to have sex with her in front of them while the police demanded you stop and answer questions? Combined with fact that more radical elements of the houston gay community have been talking about doing something like this for years (specifically including some of the people who were involved in this case; and the person who made the false report was Mr. Garner's ex-roommate and sodomy partner), along with the private statements by people in the community that "yeah, we planned it", seems to be pretty convincing circumstancial evidence to me.

But, of course, no one is going to believe this, just like they didn't want to believe that Roe v. Wade wasn't really a rape case (because women don't lie about things like that, just like homosexuals don't lie about wanting to keep their sex lives private). I doubt you'll ever see any of these details in print, because the media has an agenda and doesn't want these facts to come out. But if you want the truth, all you have to do is go to the Harris county court records and see for yourself.

[Technogeeb]

Look, the case wasn't about the wisdom of sodomy, it was about whether it should be a felony, so that persons engaging in consensual sex acts should be liable to being imprisoned in the penitentiary

No it wasn't; the Texas law in question is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine ($150 or $200 in this case).

[CobaltBlue]

In some states, like Virginia, sodomy is a felony. When the Texas statute was struck down, the Virginia one went, too.