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

Skip to comments.

Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.
US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:37:38 PM PDT by nwrep

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 next last
To: Sparta
I can at least understand yours(and Justice Thomas') position.

I cannot support Scalia or the ban-whatever-we-want-by-vote crowd here.
101 posted on 06/26/2003 10:04:15 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Bad laws promote disrespect for the law as a whole.

That sentiment isn't originally mine either.

And aren't you the same one that goes on and on about arresting people in your state for blue law violations?

Yeah, you're the thug cop aren't you?

F16..yeah that's you.
102 posted on 06/26/2003 10:05:26 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It is not I who am delusional, Dementia, but you.

Morality is objective.

I can tell you right now witout even knowing you that if you are male then you are not a monogamous homosexual.

Unless you define the term as having only one partner tonight.

I don't need to justify my arguments because they are correct.

A good man seeks to define his life by truth. While an immoral man seeks to define truth by his lifestyle.

Those who immerse themselves in moral perversion---usually the same individuals who practice it---are in the latter group
103 posted on 06/26/2003 10:06:02 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Even if the government wasn't given the authority to forbid prostitution and gay sex, it doesn't have the authority to attempt to regulate the spread of disease by providing health checks to prostitutes and it shouldn't control the insurance companies by forcing them to provide coverage for AIDS ---the reason gays really want their unions blessed by the government ---after demanding the government stay out of their sex lives at first ---is because they want spousal benefits for insurance ---they can marry each other for the AIDS treatments paid for by the health insurance plans.
104 posted on 06/26/2003 10:07:10 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Wouldn't this violate the marriage agreement? Seems to me like it's a breach of (the marriage) contract.'

Not according to Bill and Hillary, Haha.

Ok, so you win this one. I still gotcha, 2-1.

105 posted on 06/26/2003 10:09:24 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Well, in the case of your third problem with taxpayers paying for STDs, I would think that the simplest solution is to remove the socalist healthcare system so that you no longer have to pay for the consequences of people's stupid sexual decisions.
106 posted on 06/26/2003 10:11:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

I can at least understand yours(and Justice Thomas') position.

And I agree with you on repealing the sodomy laws. You and I may just disagree on how to do it.

I cannot support Scalia or the ban-whatever-we-want-by-vote crowd here.

Ah yes. The sky is falling, the Republic is dead, chicken little prudish types. The Constitution doesn't address moral issues for a reason. It was meant for every state and city to decide their quality of life issues.

107 posted on 06/26/2003 10:11:28 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
"Scolia is not the reegade here. He is standing for 200+ years of historical Constitutional interpretation."

Oh dontcha know? We have people here who pretend to know the Founding Fathers intentions have been misinterpreted -- they actually intended that:

There should be NO age limitation of sexual consent; sodomy should actually be encouraged; dog was really meant to be more than just man's "best friend."

Such is the enlightened libertarian "mind."

108 posted on 06/26/2003 10:11:36 PM PDT by F16Fighter (What color pants-suit did Hitlery wear today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
I don't hate them.

I am a Christian.

I love them by warning them that they are engaged in practices which take root in the very soul and change a man's thinking so that he cannot come to God.

Would you love your child by allowing him to destroy himself.

There is hope for all who sin. And the homosexual can be delivered from his deathstyle and set free in Christ.
109 posted on 06/26/2003 10:11:55 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk; F16Fighter; FF578

And aren't you the same one that goes on and on about arresting people in your state for blue law violations?

I think you have F16Fighter confused with FF578.

110 posted on 06/26/2003 10:12:41 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
the reason gays really want their unions blessed by the government ---after demanding the government stay out of their sex lives at first ---is because they want spousal benefits for insurance ---they can marry each other for the AIDS treatments paid for by the health insurance plans.

You know, I've seen a lot of discussions on homosexual marriage, different discussions biased on different sides, and I've never heard this argument before. In fact, given that most homosexuals don't have AIDS, I'm not sure how this could be a significant issue.
111 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:15 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Well, in the case of your third problem with taxpayers paying for STDs, I would think that the simplest solution is to remove the socalist healthcare system so that you no longer have to pay for the consequences of people's stupid sexual decisions.

That's the best way to avoid most of these moral issues. Just simply shrink the size of government all around.

112 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:49 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
"Think how much worse it would be if the Dems were in power."

I don't see much difference do you? ...I know that if BJ Billy were still in charge doing this crap most of us would be "pegging and pinging"

113 posted on 06/26/2003 10:13:57 PM PDT by alphadog (die commie scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
I don't hate them.

I have to doubt the sincerity of your assertion given your previous comment.

Same brave men would have lynched a practicing homo!
114 posted on 06/26/2003 10:15:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
......go to the matresses.....

LOL. (hums theme from The Godfather)

115 posted on 06/26/2003 10:15:20 PM PDT by ffusco (Cave Canum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Oh Yeah,

Sorry!

Antisodomy laws are not newly being passed in Texas or elsewhere. These laws have always been part of American society.

Our forefathers understood far better than we the destructive nature of homosexuality and outlawed it.

We want to help homosexuals. But we understand that help them or not, we must protect society.
116 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:10 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
And aren't you the fledging "actor"??

Come on -- Let's see that pretty-boy face on your new profile page again. But again, that would explain your, ahem, "view" of the issue at hand.

117 posted on 06/26/2003 10:16:31 PM PDT by F16Fighter (What color pants-suit did Hitlery wear today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk

Damn, where is that constitutional right to ANYTHING not explicitly listed in the constitution?

But...I thought the Ninth Amendment said I had more rights than those explicitly listed in the constitution. I guess I'm just a naive libertarian.

118 posted on 06/26/2003 10:17:46 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy
The state passes all sort of laws to outlaw many things that we do with our bodies, prostitution, suicide, drug use, etc.

And the state is dead wrong there too. The state should limit itself to keeping us from preying on each other. Punishing sinners is God's job.

119 posted on 06/26/2003 10:18:10 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Talking to yourself is a sign of insanity.
120 posted on 06/26/2003 10:19:18 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Thanks, F16,

This isn't the first time you've jumped in the foxhole for right.

Hooyah!
121 posted on 06/26/2003 10:19:27 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

And the state is dead wrong there too. The state should limit itself to keeping us from preying on each other. Punishing sinners is God's job.

BTTT

122 posted on 06/26/2003 10:19:57 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Rodsomnia
"Talking about pandering to the legal culture."

He should dumb it down a notch. Instead of Anti-miscagenation he should have said "no jungle- fever"

/sarcasm on/
123 posted on 06/26/2003 10:20:24 PM PDT by ffusco (Cave Canum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
I apologize for mistaking you for that FF578 guy.
If you've seen his posts, you'd know what I was talking about.

Hey, how do you remember my old profile page? No really, how the heck do you remember, I barely remember it!

But please, trying to imply that I'm homosexual because of my picture or aspirations(Ok, if I said interior decorator you'd be on point) and hence I defend homosexuality is beyond ridiculous and insulting.

Next you're going to tell me I'm smoking weed and shooting heroin because I'm against the WOD.


BTW, I'm insulted but I thought your dig about my old profile page WAS pretty funny :)
124 posted on 06/26/2003 10:20:57 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Well, in the case of your third problem with taxpayers paying for STDs, I would think that the simplest solution is to remove the socalist healthcare system so that you no longer have to pay for the consequences of people's stupid sexual decisions."

"simplest solution?" If you can get this simple solution resolved by next Tuesday, then I'll reconsider my beef. The homosexual organizations (all of them) want me to pay for their sin out of my pocket, then if I complain, they tell me it's about "privacy", and to put up and shut up.

125 posted on 06/26/2003 10:21:44 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Scalia is not the reegade here. He is standing for 200+ years of historical Constitutional interpretation."

Surely, then, you'll tell me what tradition Presser, Miller, Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott case fall under? The evil and tyrannical school of jurisprudence?

126 posted on 06/26/2003 10:23:18 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: alphadog
I don't see much difference do you?

I'm thinking the only difference is the tax cuts. Maybe there was a deal struck. As long as the Republicans got their tax cuts, the liberals could continue their agenda, which would mean that all the Reps. cared about was tax cuts. If they care about more than tax cuts, evidently it's the liberal agenda.

127 posted on 06/26/2003 10:23:31 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
No, you're just a loserdopian. ;)
128 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:05 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
it's not right to take the law into one's own hands.

But sometimes when the government does not do right, good people do take action themselves. Rememgber the lady who shot the repeat child-molester in California ?

Our forefathers just wouldn't take much nonsense. It's not that they couldn't have understood the Rainbow (ACK!) Coalition but that they would have understood it too well.

I would never go outside the law and hurt anyone but I do believe The state has a responsibility in this nation to encourage morality and discourage immorality as it historically has.

I do believe that Homosexuality is a capital offense against God and any nation.

129 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:43 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Our nation was in the process of healing the unjust treatment of blacks long before the Civil War occurred.

Nevertheless, when you are arguing strict constitutionalism, I don't think you can argue that the decisions you mentioned violated the document.

Today people use the Constitution to defend whatever weirdness they want to practice. It doesn't.

The constitution is a social document. It is moral to the extent it includes the bill of rights and representative government by law.

The Whole body of American law, incuding the constitution is founded to a great extent upon unchanging moral truths taught in the Bible.

The Bible was the most quoted document in early colonial governance and jurisprudence.

Don't fear it; embrace it as light and life.
130 posted on 06/26/2003 10:37:04 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Good post.

People are saying this opens the doors to all kinds of deviant behavior. Yet no one brought up the fact of that God would treat all overt sexual acts to be deviant. Make all porn illegal and make every sexual act in the bedroom except for the act of missionary sex(and only if you want to have a child!) illegal. That way we can all be happy.... what a joke. People just can't get the difference between what should be law.. and what should be their own moral behavior. Don't dicate what I do in my bedroom. Oh yeah.. don't forget.. masterbation is deviant as well. Ah shucks.. let's give people the death penalty for that.
131 posted on 06/26/2003 10:38:46 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TFMcGuire
Morality is objective.

If you can demonstrate the existence of an absolute frame of reference for defining morality, then I will agree with you. If you merely assert belief that morality is objective, then that is just a belief. Other people may have belief in an objective morality that differs from your own, and thus it's your word against theirs until you pony up evidence for your assertion.

I can tell you right now witout even knowing you that if you are male then you are not a monogamous homosexual.

I am not a homosexual, so I can't really say whether or not you are correct. I was not speaking of myself, however, I was speaking of homosexuals in general. That you seem to believe that there is no such thing as a male monogamous homosexual is indicative of either incredible arrogance or exceptional knowledge because it means that you have been able to ascertain the life history of every male homosexual on the planet. For some reason I believe that the former is more accurate than the latter.

Unless you define the term as having only one partner tonight.

And this is just a stupid statement. To assert that every male homosexual has a different sexual partner every night is just abject stupidity and indicative of a complete lack of assocation with reality.

I don't need to justify my arguments because they are correct.

In other words, you assert the infallability of your assertions regarding the existence and nature of an absolute morality as well as your assertion regarding the sexual history of every male homosexual on the planet. I can think of a term for that, but it wouldn't be "correct".
132 posted on 06/26/2003 10:38:53 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
You say segregation is not relevant and question my motivation in doing so, and you are wrong to do that. You state that I operate under an assumption that state power will always result in abuse. This too, is wrong. Instead, I say that the supreme law of the land supercedes the state's rights when the state is overstepping its bounds. PERIOD.

No. Not period. The supreme law of the land can be and often is corruptly enforced in a way that violates liberty. When an unjust federal law that violates liberty conflicts with a state, its supremacy is only valid in technical application, which can be itself invalidly applied. Thus a state could contradict a federal policy in a manner that violated statutory supremacy but was consistent with the law of nature and in such a case nature prevails, at least in right, over statute.

Do you or do you not support lifting all gun laws banning possession or limiting it(by number, cool-off periods, etc) because they are a violation of the 2nd?

On a strictly constitutional measure as intended by the founding fathers, I support a policy lifting all federal laws that infringe upon the right to bear arms. The states, as originally intended (meaning at a time that predates the 14th amendment's clauses to extend federal authority) and governed back in 1787, each had their own bill of rights in their state constitutions (In fact Virginia's original bill of rights predates the Constitution by several years and was the model on which they drafted the federal one). Almost all of the original state constitutions have rights to bear arms in them and, as such, those rights should be enforced just as the federal ones. For those few that do not have them, I will urge them to adopt those clauses but cannot exercise an unjust federal authority to enforce it upon them.

133 posted on 06/26/2003 10:44:05 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"the reason gays really want their unions blessed by the government ---after demanding the government stay out of their sex lives at first ---is because they want spousal benefits for insurance ---they can marry each other for the AIDS treatments paid for by the health insurance plans."

Dimensio response: "You know, I've seen a lot of discussions on homosexual marriage, different discussions biased on different sides, and I've never heard this argument before. In fact, given that most homosexuals don't have AIDS, I'm not sure how this could be a significant issue."

This is astonishing. HIV rates are vastly higher among homosexuals than heteros, I'm surprised you are not aware of the exrent of this problem----where have you been?

Even if only 80% of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals, considering that supposedlly 10% of the population is homosexual, that means 80% of the disease is among 10% of the population. The simple mathematical facts are that one engaging in homosexual activity is 50 times as likely to be carrying (and spreading) this disease. It is easily the #1 life-and-death health risk for homosexuals. People are scheming and plotting all the time to get better health coverage, do you think homosexuals are morally superior and don't engage in such manipulations?

The "straight people" are supposed to pay for this, while spending $500,000 to raise the future doctors and nurses and taxpayers to take care of this self-absorbed group later on. What I would like to see from homosexuals is a little more willingness to pick up after themselves.

134 posted on 06/26/2003 10:44:45 PM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Didn't you know? All of us who stand for liberty and REDUCING the power of the state(be it federal or state or local) are homos who meet other gay men in parks and insert our penises into each others' anuses.

My girlfriend's going to be quite disappointed with this turn of events.
135 posted on 06/26/2003 10:47:27 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Good to know!
136 posted on 06/26/2003 10:47:47 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
You misunderstood what I meant by supreme law of the land. I'm referring to the Constitution, NOT normal federal laws. Therefore, my point stands, and in fact that's what the Constitution is, by any interpretation.
137 posted on 06/26/2003 10:48:37 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
We will not survive this without repentance. Homosexuality and other immorality destroys nations.
138 posted on 06/26/2003 10:50:01 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
This is astonishing. HIV rates are vastly higher among homosexuals than heteros, I'm surprised you are not aware of the exrent of this problem----where have you been?

Even if only 80% of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals, considering that supposedlly 10% of the population is homosexual, that means 80% of the disease is among 10% of the population.


I did not assert that AIDS or HIV rates amongst homosexuals are equal to or lower than amongst heterosexuals. I asserted that the majority of homosexuals are not infected with HIV/AIDS. Nothing that you have stated here (which is supposition anyway) counters this.

The simple mathematical facts are that one engaging in homosexual activity is 50 times as likely to be carrying (and spreading) this disease.

Wouldn't this depend upon their sexual habits? A male homosexual who sleeps with a different partner every week (even amongst the 'slutty' homosexuals I've met, that's a VERY high figure) would be at significantly higher risk than a lesbian who has only one ten sexual partners during her entire life.

It is easily the #1 life-and-death health risk for homosexuals. People are scheming and plotting all the time to get better health coverage, do you think homosexuals are morally superior and don't engage in such manipulations?

No, but I don't see 'getting free AIDS coverage' as a really big selling point for gay marriage amongst homosexuals. Healthcare is one factor brought up, but it never seems to be any more discussed than others.
139 posted on 06/26/2003 10:50:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
All of us who stand for liberty and REDUCING the power of the state(be it federal or state or local) are homos who meet other gay men in parks and insert our penises into each others' anuses.

I always wonder why people in favour of sodomy laws always bring up the most descriptive terms in the discussions. They say that it's because they want to be blunt about "what homosexuals do", evermind that lesbians typically aren't able to do that and that there are even male homosexuals who aren't interested in such sexual activity.
140 posted on 06/26/2003 10:52:10 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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.
141 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:11 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
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.
142 posted on 06/26/2003 11:11:56 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Vote Right and you'll never vote wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
FYI: According the CDC, 94% of all new aides cases are homosexual patients.
143 posted on 06/26/2003 11:27:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
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!


144 posted on 06/27/2003 1:42:16 AM PDT by CaptIsaacDavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: disenfranchised
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!
145 posted on 06/27/2003 1:46:21 AM PDT by CaptIsaacDavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CaptIsaacDavis
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.
146 posted on 06/27/2003 1:53:03 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

.
147 posted on 06/27/2003 1:54:15 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sci Fi Guy
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.

148 posted on 06/27/2003 2:38:39 AM PDT by IrishRainy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute
flag
149 posted on 06/27/2003 5:01:33 AM PDT by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
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!

150 posted on 06/27/2003 5:42:45 AM PDT by Patangeles (If it ain't in the Constitution, it's up to the several states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-213 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