Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.

US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

[Skywalk]

That's exactly why I phrased it that way, because there are a few people on this forum that seem intimately familiar with homosexuality and enjoy describing it in detail, repeatedly.

Hmm, they probably have to wipe the drool and steam off their monitor after that.

[TFMcGuire]

Exactly. It is a power relegated to the states.

Although we shouldn't change good law. Overthrowing antisodomy laws is not moving in the right direction.

[longtermmemmory]

FYI: According the CDC, 94% of all new aides cases are homosexual patients.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

THEY HAVE DECLARED WAR ON US! The Supreme Court has declared war on the people of the United States and their governments (state and federal). The 6 justices supporting the decision have committed a criminal act by violating their constitutional oaths of office in order to engage in a conspiracy to subvert the constitutional order (see the Federal codes for "subversion"). Their reasoning rests on the self-asserted power, unfounded in any prior decision (actually in clear violation of every relevant decision ever made over the history of the USSC's operation), law (passed by Congress or power delegated by the states), or the US constitution (as in "social contract" with the people from whom the power to govern is presumably derived from), to DECREE from the bench that "liberty" and the inalienable right to self-determination and self-government are now superceded by the will of a tyrannical clique in black robes issuing a DIKTAT for unencumbered -- anarchic -- pseudo-liberty in the bedroom. The majority was right on one thing -- morality will be absent in the bedrooms of America -- by decree. By so decreeing they are also asserting, as a matter of policy and law, that the current majority on the USSC is operating WITHOUT MORALITY and without any respect for the rights of the people to govern themselves. If the people have no right to govern themselves on such issues, then the entire scheme of federal law collapses, because the Constitution (the social contract with the American people) is nullified. They have just decreed that they are, in fact, as a matter of constitutional law, lawless!

IT IS TIME CONGRESS STOPPED FUNDING THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY -- REMEMBER, ALL OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, OTHER THAN THE SUPREMES, EXIST AT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND CONGRESS. IT IS ONLY IN THAT FASHION THAT THE REVOLUTIONARY COUP D'ETAT THAT THE LIBERAL FACTION ON THE COURT SEEKS TO IMPOSE ON THE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE EFFECTIVELY CHECKED. RESIGNATIONS OF THOSE BEHIND THE DECISION SHOULD BE DEMANDED BY THE PRESIDENT!

[CaptIsaacDavis]

RIGHT ON!

THEY HAVE DECLARED WAR ON US! The Supreme Court has declared war on the people of the United States and their governments (state and federal). The 6 justices supporting the decision have committed a criminal act by violating their constitutional oaths of office in order to engage in a conspiracy to subvert the constitutional order (see the Federal codes for "subversion"). Their reasoning rests on the self-asserted power, unfounded in any prior decision (actually in clear violation of every relevant decision ever made over the history of the USSC's operation), law (passed by Congress or power delegated by the states), or the US constitution (as in "social contract" with the people from whom the power to govern is presumably derived from), to DECREE from the bench that "liberty" and the inalienable right to self-determination and self-government are now superceded by the will of a tyrannical clique in black robes issuing a DIKTAT for unencumbered -- anarchic -- pseudo-liberty in the bedroom. The majority was right on one thing -- morality will be absent in the bedrooms of America -- by decree. By so decreeing they are also asserting, as a matter of policy and law, that the current majority on the USSC is operating WITHOUT MORALITY and without any respect for the rights of the people to govern themselves. If the people have no right to govern themselves on such issues, then the entire scheme of federal law collapses, because the Constitution (the social contract with the American people) is nullified. They have just decreed that they are, in fact, as a matter of constitutional law, lawless!

IT IS TIME CONGRESS STOPPED FUNDING THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY -- REMEMBER, ALL OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, OTHER THAN THE SUPREMES, EXIST AT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND CONGRESS. IT IS ONLY IN THAT FASHION THAT THE REVOLUTIONARY COUP D'ETAT THAT THE LIBERAL FACTION ON THE COURT SEEKS TO IMPOSE ON THE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE EFFECTIVELY CHECKED. RESIGNATIONS OF THOSE BEHIND THE DECISION SHOULD BE DEMANDED BY THE PRESIDENT!

[Skywalk]

And if they had overturned all laws against gun ownership and all affirmative action policies(non-private) would you be calling for this then?

Hypocrite.

[firewalk]

.

[IrishRainy]

You're sooo right. If I truly had the right to do what I want with my body, like the pro-aborts say, I should be able to stand on the corner and chop off my own arm. Everyone around me would have to accept the situation, as it is my decision to do what I want with my body.

Of course, in reality, the cops would be called, I would be hauled off to a mental hospital on a 5150, and everyone would call me crazy. In that case, the "state" would be allowed to decide what I can and can't do with my own body.

It truly amazes me that THAT is the argument the pro-aborts give over and over in rationalizing their "right" to kill their babies. Yet if it was anything OTHER than a fetus, it would NOT be tolerated.

[snopercod]

flag

[Patangeles]

Are you idiotic enough to think that the BoR is a "grant" of your rights?

You mean it's not? :)

They didn't include heterosexual oral sex in their either. Guess there's no right to eat white bread, because it's not in the BoR.

Guess not.

What a moronic argument.

Nice technique. Helps me respect your point of view. NOT!

[Skywalk]

Look, I actually unfairly snapped at you in that post. Lots of people have been extremely condescending and hostile and I probably lost track of who I was mad at.
So I'm sorry for that.

That said, almost ANYONE on this board will right now tell you that the BoR is not a GRANT, in fact, the entire constitution is supposed to be a LIMIT upon the powers of the State. Many, like Patrick Henry, were fearful of the entire arrangement and some believed that by including a specific BoR, that other rights would be violated by a government hungry to establish power whereever it could via the appearance of legality.

So when someone says "I dont see X listed" they are basically illustrating that many of the Founders were prophetic in their doubts and fears.

[irish_links]

"...Man, this guy loves the State...."

Sky: You're almost half right. Your statement would correctly read, "Man, this guy loves the states."

Justice Scalia shows in his opinion an appropriate respect for the right of people, as expressed by the actions of their state legislatures, to pass laws that constrain human behavior. In this case the human behavior that is constrained is homosexual sodomy. But it could as well have been murder, rape, prostitution or drug possession.

You may believe that one should be at liberty to engage in any or all of these things. I might agree with you on some. But the fact is that the people of Texas disagree with you and the Consititution gives them the clear right to do so, even when they impringe on an individual's pursuit of his pleasure.

You correctly see sodomy laws as a deprivation of liberty. Scalia agrees with you. What you fail to understand is that all laws are in effect a deprivation of liberty. On this point, the Bill of Rights says that no state shall deprive men of liberty without due process. None on the majority even accuses the State of Texas of failing to provide due process to criminals prosecuted under these laws. They simply don't like the law, so they held against it: the definition of arbitrary and capricious.

As Scalia states in his dissent, he has nothing against homosexuals. His position is based on legal and Constitutional principles. He is concerned that when the court disregards legal and Constitutional principles it will lose it moorings and act as a dictatorship of elite opinion that will deprive the people of their democratic right of self governance. Clearly, we are not far from there.

The one positive thing that has emerged from this fiasco is that it has cast asunder any pretention that the Supreme Court is obligated to give extreme deference to past court rulings when considering new cases (Stare Decisis). The only thing that matters is the collective opinion of the nine people who happen to be sitting on the court at a given time. If God is willing, this means that the legal travesty known as Roe v. Wade is not long to stand.

[irish_links]

"...He's almost as good as Walter Willians, but I could do without the latin. Talking about pandering to the legal culture...."

Is it necessary to remind you that this is a legal opinion, in fact a Supreme Court dissent? It is necessary and appropriate that he use legal language, including Latin.

[irish_links]

"...And is that act any less repugnant than say, a heterosexual orgy? Should we start arresting people for anything they do when agreeing to an act?..."

The question Scalia is addressing is not whether we should start arresting people for engaging in orgies. The question at hand is whether a state has the right to prohibit such behavior legally.

The clear answer is that it does. Indeed, some states have laws prohibiting adultery. Orgies would certainly seem to fall within this category.

[Skywalk]

But therein lies the difficulty with this issue.

I would alter your statement to say "all laws are infringements upon freedom." I'm probably just being a stickler there but I regard the two as a bit different.

I DO NOT view state law as "due process." If that is the case, then any decision that is made that renders your liberty null is valid so long as it is enacted in the legislature.

I also am at a loss. What rights exactly ARE covered in the 9th? Are there any? can anyone name one? Surely they exist or there'd be no need of a 9th.

Are we to be denied liberty when our behavior does NOT infringe upon the rights of others, simply because it is not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights? That makes no sense. I believe that is a major concern.

I also don't know how we are protected by simply narrowing government authority to a smaller population pool. The Bill of Rights IS supposed to protect us against ALL levels of government. If 51 percent of California vote for, via elected representatives, making people wear blue jeans this is NOT a valid law--PERIOD. States are limited in what laws they may enact too.


BTW, from what I recall of some of Scalia's other opinions he seems to rarely find against law enforcement, because he is partial to 'law and order' and 'public morality' despite the fact that his decisions have been clearly unconstitutitonal.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Socail order? Dang, this guy scares me more and more everyday. I wonder how bad he would have thought the freeing of the slaves or woman's suffrage "disrupted the social order" of the day?

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed.

It's about time someone said that.

Man, this guy loves the State.

Yes, he sure does. Its hard to see why people champion him as the pinnacle of conservatism.

[irish_links]

"...Maybe watching people get arrested for consensual crimes arouses your fascist impulses, but some of us believe such laws to be ridiculous and against the very spirit of liberty...."

Well, that's sound legal reasoning. Let me translate. I don't like that law in Texas, therefore the Supreme Court should strike it down.

This could apply to any behavior that you like, but the people of some state don't. To put forth this argument is childish.

[Skywalk]

No no. The poster I responded to was talking about watching cops and fearing that he could no longer watch prostitution stings.

I'm sorry, that's evil.

[FITZ]

given that most homosexuals don't have AIDS, I'm not sure how this could be a significant issue.

A pretty high percent are HIV positive and can delay getting AIDS for years if they have very expensive anti-virals and the rest to delay AIDS. Two can get in on one life-insurance policy with "marriage" and spousal benefits and it helps with some of those pre-conditions. Monogamy is not part of the gay lifestyle ---how many of these "marriages" do you believe would actually have any fidelity? Do you honestly believe that they aren't going to use the spousal benefits? Or if there was a clause that the government would recognize gay marriage but wouldn't impose insurance companies to comply with the spousal benefits, do you think the gays would accept it?