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: Patangeles
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.
151 posted on 06/27/2003 5:52:01 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...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.
152 posted on 06/27/2003 5:58:30 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rodsomnia
"...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.
153 posted on 06/27/2003 6:01:43 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...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.

154 posted on 06/27/2003 6:05:18 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
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.
155 posted on 06/27/2003 6:09:27 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
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?
156 posted on 06/27/2003 6:11:01 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
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.

157 posted on 06/27/2003 6:13:18 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...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.
158 posted on 06/27/2003 6:14:13 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
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.
159 posted on 06/27/2003 6:16:30 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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?

160 posted on 06/27/2003 6:19:10 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...However, Justice Scalia has demonstrated in the past with his "order above liberty" decisions that his grasp of the spirit of the Constitution is quite limited compared to even little ole me...."

On the basis of your comments on this thread, you know precious little of the letter of the Constitution, let alone its "spirit."

161 posted on 06/27/2003 6:20:17 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
What of my argument(and I believe the actual truth) that due process applies to a discrete event or period of time, be it jury trial and imprisonment for a crime, compensation for a tort, hearings and compensation for eminent domain, etc??

It is ridiculous to assume that due process now includes any law enacted by a state legislature. Such laws are permanent and permanently and irrevocably strip a class of citizens of liberty. That is NOT due process merely because people vote for representatives.
162 posted on 06/27/2003 6:20:21 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
I forgot, according to your argument, anything not listed is subject to arbitrary law-making by the politicians, so long as it's at the state level.

163 posted on 06/27/2003 6:21:37 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

Comment #164 Removed by Moderator

To: Skywalk
"...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?..."

These cases were resolved through the tradition of courts considering and interpreting the Constitution, its Bill of Rights and Amendments, Common Law precedent and statute as they pertain to the facts of the case. Making up the law on the fly, thereby depriving the rights of the people to govern themselves had nothing to do with them.

As for slavery (in re Dred Scott), it was ended by the ratification of the 13th Amendment by the several states. The Emancipation Proclimation was only tangential and the Supreme Court never dictated it. Slavery was ended by the democratic action of the people.

You seem determined to deprive the people of their right of self governance. You claim that this is in the "spirit" of the Constitution. How on earth have you arrived at that conclusion?

165 posted on 06/27/2003 6:34:22 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
ROFL

Now you claim that it is a matter of self-governance?

Fortunately, blacks were not being exterminated instead of enslaved because if you had your way, such would be a matter of "self-governance."

Sorry, there are certain things that are not up for any government or "majority" to decide, but I thought we all agreed with that here on FR.

I guess not. As long as you got the votes, it's cool.

No revolution, just pressure King George, that'll work. Don't demand that the OBVIOUS be acknowledged(slaves are sovereign beings and not property) but instead let's all vote on it and hope it turns out for the best.

Hey, you go ahead with that view, seems like you can justify anything with that. I'm supposed to not only go along with that view, but not even disagree unless it's done through the courts and "traditional forms of self-governance."

Fantastic.
166 posted on 06/27/2003 6:41:48 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers..."

Perhaps some. But his spirited denunciations of Griswold, Roe, Casey and now Lawrence all seem to have many of the Framers guiding his hand as they tap the keyboard. The so-called "privacy" right is the most pernicious and cancerous stain on America's body politic. It's turned the Supreme Court into nothing more than a supra-legislature, totally unrecognizable to the Framers.
167 posted on 06/27/2003 6:52:03 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
So we don't have any rights not listed in 1-8 then?

You're telling me that a state CAN legislate matters of conception between husband and wife(Griswold?)

LOL If you say so.
168 posted on 06/27/2003 7:05:21 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Sorry, there are certain things that are not up for any government or "majority" to decide, but I thought we all agreed with that here on FR.

I guess not. As long as you got the votes, it's cool.

And this kind of mentallity that is demonstarted time and time again is baffling to me. I continuously hear and see people who claim to be conservatives say and write things like "This contry continues to become a cesspool" or "We keep going further down the path to destruction", but continue to argue for a democracy. It seems that they are oblivious to the fact that if this county is in deed becomming what they say, then in the near future, these "conservatives" will not be "the majority". So instead of leaving people alone to determine what private, peacefull activities they will engage in, these "conservatives" keep insisting "majority rules" when its going to come back and bite them in the arse sooner or later.

169 posted on 06/27/2003 7:10:54 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
What's also depressing is that bright and knowledgeable people will seriously argue that a right does not exist if it doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. Then no one will answer what the 9th Amendment covers when I ask. Nor do they seem to recall much of what Hamilton and other said about the BoR not being meant to grant ANY government the authority to intrude on certain areas of life.

We had one praising Scalia's dissent in the Griswold case, which was a law prohibiting(or was it merely regulating) the use of contraception between a married man and his wife. And CONSERVATIVES will support these kinds of laws, simply because one group of idiots elects another?

Way to go defenders of liberty! lol
170 posted on 06/27/2003 7:22:43 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...Hey, you go ahead with that view, seems like you can justify anything with that. I'm supposed to not only go along with that view, but not even disagree unless it's done through the courts and "traditional forms of self-governance."..."

The Framers were wise, as was Justice Marshall, the first SC Chief Justice. He established the principle of judicial review. That is, that the SCOTUS has the power to overturn laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, its Amendments and the BoR.

The tradition of judicial review protects the people from the tyranny of a state majority. This is a critical pillar of our freedom and I cherish it.

But, the review power granted to the SCOTUS can easily be abused. Prior to the modern era, it was widely held that the SCOTUS should apply a strict reading of the Constitution when exercising its judicial supremacy power over the states. That is, it should give grave deference to the laws of the states, and it shouldn't go inventing rights that aren't set forth in the Constitution, and then start overturning state law because the laws deprive the citizens of that state of the newly minted right. The modern courts have abandoned this sensible constraint of their potentially dictatorial power. The social costs of this change have been tremendous. Although you may not understand it, the damage to our liberty has been incalculable.

The invention of a privacy right in the Constitution was the most serious breach of the traditional constraint of strict construction. Scalia clearly questions the existence of a constitutionally protected right to privacy, being the strict constructionist that he is. I agree with him. The Founders suffered under no such delusion, nor is it imbedded in the Common Law.

If you want a right of privacy, pass a constitutional amendment. Until such an amendment is passed, you are free to move to a state that does not prohibit your private act of gratification. If no such state exists, you are free to move to another country where it is.

This ability of self governance, the right to property and the freedom of movement is the bedrock of our freedom. The imposition of the high minded opinions of several justices who deem it unnecessary to support their opinions with any kind of compelling legal argument is not freedom, rather tyranny.

For the record, I am with Thomas on the appropriateness of sodomy laws. Indeed, I have great respect even for O'Conner's comments regarding the equal protection issue of whether a sodomy law should apply only to homosexual conduct (although ultimately Scalia's legal argument on this matter is more compelling). I do not advocate sodomy laws. But it is clear to me that the Constitution gives states the right to have them, just as it gives them the right to outlaw prostitution, suicide or drug possession, even when these activities occur in the privacy of one's home.

You may believe that these "victimless" crimes should not be crimes at all. If so, petition your state government to act in that manner. But please, don't use the dictatorial powers of the supreme court to impose your views on the rest of us. Many of us disagree and wish to live in a different type of society. That’s what Federalism is all about.
171 posted on 06/27/2003 7:27:15 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...What's also depressing is that bright and knowledgeable people will seriously argue that a right does not exist if it doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. Then no one will answer what the 9th Amendment covers when I ask. Nor do they seem to recall much of what Hamilton and other said about the BoR not being meant to grant ANY government the authority to intrude on certain areas of life...."

The Ninth Amendment protects the people and the states from the Federal government. In other words, the Federal government can't deny the people and the states of rights that they have. It in no way gives the Supreme Court the power to invent a right and then impose it on the states and the people.

If that power exists, if must be held in the penumbra of some other Amendment.
172 posted on 06/27/2003 7:33:35 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...We had one praising Scalia's dissent in the Griswold case, which was a law prohibiting(or was it merely regulating) the use of contraception between a married man and his wife. And CONSERVATIVES will support these kinds of laws, simply because one group of idiots elects another?

Way to go defenders of liberty! lol..."

You seem to be confusing conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives have a profound respect for tradition and are skeptical of those who would have us abandon it. Granted, some are extreme or intemperate in these views. Criticize them appropriately for their extremism. Do not fault them for their respect for tradition.

Libertarians may have respect for tradition (the Lew Rockwell crowd comes to mind), but they value absolute personal freedom to a greater extent. Clearly, you are a libertarian. Fine.

Please do not criticize conservatives for not being libertarians. The two terms are not synonymous.
173 posted on 06/27/2003 7:37:49 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
But the existence of a law is the imposition, though I grant the imposition may be wholly justified and moral(law against murder, for instance.)

Therefore, it's really the laws and those that support them that are imposing on the rest of us. The case is even stronger when one discusses laws against drug possession. There are a host of issues associated with criminalizing possession of a substance, but that's for another day.

The fact is, through demagoguery a couple of these laws were passed and the government worked so hard to propagandize the populace that people commonly believe the law to be just. Anyone who really believe marijuana should be illegal and alcohol legal is an example of this phenomenon.

I do not trust the government as you do.
174 posted on 06/27/2003 7:38:19 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
The 10th applies to the States, not the 9th.

The 9th only mentions the people.

But maybe that's a collective right, like the gun-grabbers argue with the 2nd.

But you knew that.
175 posted on 06/27/2003 7:40:01 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
...deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons...

Homosexuals? An entire "class" deprived the liberty of an unnatural act that is proven to spread STDs? Are those beastiality folks deserving of their "liberties" as well?...and those incestual folks?

176 posted on 06/27/2003 7:40:02 AM PDT by smith288 (We are but a moon, reflecting the light of the Son.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steplock
"Remember this: What is the MAIN means of AIDS transfer in the Western World? Homosexuality.

If anyone in this country had any guts back even before Reagan (including Reagan) the AIDS epidemic could have been halted in its tracks in the Western World (RACIST!!)"

Well, we can see that all those sodomy laws brought homosexuality to a sceeching halt in the states that had the laws, can't we? Worked extremely well -- NOT. And in my state all of the married heterosexuals never had oral sex because it was outlawed. Worked very well, too.
177 posted on 06/27/2003 7:42:22 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be in the day of the coming of the Lord.

I could have a word or two wrong there, but the meaning is intact. Prophecy continues to unfold.

MM
178 posted on 06/27/2003 7:46:56 AM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smith288
Heteros spread disease too, right?

Illegitimacy is a Faaaaaaaar greater problem, so you will join with me in my call to ban heterosexual sex between unmarried persons.

Oh, also let's ban contraceptives as that encourages promiscuity.

You're still with me, right?
179 posted on 06/27/2003 7:49:41 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
What's also depressing is that bright and knowledgeable people will seriously argue that a right does not exist if it doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. Then no one will answer what the 9th Amendment covers when I ask.

Of course not. They'd have to admit it covers all private, peaceful activity that does not initiate force or fraud against another and thus violate the equal rights of others.

Many also don't see how the 9th an 10th work together:

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly, this says that the rights people possess are not just what is stated in the BoR. Of course that true. Jefferson and Hamilton, and others, were afraid people would think that only rights listed in 1-8 were actual rights. Their fears were founded in the regonition of human nature and were correct.

Amendment X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Some people read this and think its talking about rights. Its not. Its about powers. And as you correctly stated earlier, there are some issues that no level of government can be given the power to make decisions on. People actually have limited "powers" as powers are what are given to government. People retain ALL rights. The power to protect those rights is partially given to government. I say partially because obviously every individual has the right to self-defense.

This is the way I look at it. Righst exist exclusive of government. Governments eitehr choose to recognize the rights, or they choose not to. Regardless of laws or edicts, the rights still exist.

180 posted on 06/27/2003 8:05:06 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...I do not trust the government as you do...."

I have no faith in government. But, I abjure my right to complete freedom in order to live in a society governed by the rule of law and not the tyranny of men.

One of the pillars of our society, ruled by law and not men, is the concept of Federalism. Federalism allows each of the several states to work out on its own the nitty, gritty details of what body of laws makes for a good society.

Some of the states will lean toward a libertarian approach that you seem to prefer. Others will opt for a body of law that deems to guide the moral behavior of its citizens. Still others, like my State of Ohio, will search for something in between.

As a citizen of these UNITED STATES, I can choose which type of laws I wish my behavior to be governed by. That is, if I don't like the laws in the state in which I reside, I can act politically to change them or move to a place in greater harmony with my will.

In your world, I would be obligated to live under a set of laws that the powerful elite believes are good for me. I would have no say, through the power of my vote acting collectively with others who share my views, in the determination of the laws that govern me.

You may call that freedom. I don't.
181 posted on 06/27/2003 8:09:33 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: HurkinMcGurkin
It seems some would rather use the most expansive interpretation possible so that they can regulate anything you do that falls outside of listed rights.

Whether or not I agree with homosexuality or the agenda of the political left is irrelevant. People are really just mad about the homosexual aspect.

I guarantee you when it's a reach for them(in their brain) they'll be there cheering this same 'cabal' they curse now. Quite sad really.
182 posted on 06/27/2003 8:09:54 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
So instead you'd be able to decide by majority vote any issue you damn well pleased, simply because you wish it that way.

Interesting, there are few protections under such an arrangement(besides the ones explicitly listed.)
183 posted on 06/27/2003 8:11:18 AM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Every teenage..normal..boy knows that a a man looking at him as a girl would gives him the creeps. Their behavior is an un-natural perversion.
The battle is for control of this court!
184 posted on 06/27/2003 8:15:49 AM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
As a citizen of these UNITED STATES, I can choose which type of laws I wish my behavior to be governed by.

LOL!!! No, you want to choose laws to govern the behavior of OTHERS. People don't propose and pass laws to govern THEIR OWN behavior, because they have already chosen to "behave" in a certain way. The laws are for those who disagree. Just as no one censors speech they agree with.

In your world, I would be obligated to live under a set of laws that the powerful elite believes are good for me.

Uh, no, that's your world. The "powerfull elite" are the ones who make such laws pertaining to sexual behavior, drugs, guns, etc. - you know, the laws that govern private behavior!?

I would have no say, through the power of my vote acting collectively with others who share my views, in the determination of the laws that govern me.

Where do keeo getting this "govern me" idea? You want laws to govern EVERYONE ELSE who disagrees with you. Your view isn't about "self governance", its about the governance of those who see things differently than you. I mean, sheesh, are you going to move to Texas now and start having queer sex? Was the law the only thing stopping you? I hope not, or you suffer fron a severe case of projection.

185 posted on 06/27/2003 8:21:19 AM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...The 10th applies to the States, not the 9th.

The 9th only mentions the people...."

You've made a distinction without a difference. The IXth relates to rights and the Xth to powers. The concept of subsidiarity applies to both.

The two together reinforce the idea that the Federal government has no authority to deprive the people of a freedom that it has, which includes the power to pass laws that you do not like, but which otherwise do not deprive the citizens of said state of any right explicity set forth in the Bill of Rights or were otherwise recognized in the Common Law. (Note to Skywalk: as Scalia aptly demonstrates, no unlimited right to private personal conduct is so recognized).

The Constitution established a variety of ways that the several states could create new a right not recognized in the common law or explicity identified in the Bill of Rights. These include having the legislature pass a law or proposing a constitutional amendment and having it ratified by a super-majority of the states.

The Founders could have, but did not grant the federal courts the authority to invent new rights not expressed in the BoR or commonly granted in the Common Law. It certainly did not intend to permit the federal courts to invent such new rights and then impose them on the several states.

Granted, the language of the IXth and Xth is purposely vague, but the political apparatus established under the Constitution is not. It is a leap too far to suggest that the Founders intended these Amendments as a mechanism to give the federal government a special, extra-political power to establish new rights not recognized in the Common Law.

186 posted on 06/27/2003 8:27:49 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...So instead you'd be able to decide by majority vote any issue you damn well pleased, simply because you wish it that way.

Interesting, there are few protections under such an arrangement(besides the ones explicitly listed.)..."

Except the rights recognized under the Common Law. You remember that, the distilled wisdom of about 900 years of jurisprudence, not to mention 3,000 years of Western Civilization.
187 posted on 06/27/2003 8:31:01 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
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.

And that begs the next question. Exactly how does the Constitution permit the courts to exercise power in the sodomy case, namely where do they get this so-called right of "privacy" from?

188 posted on 06/27/2003 8:52:57 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
"...So instead you'd be able to decide by majority vote any issue you damn well pleased, simply because you wish it that way.

Interesting, there are few protections under such an arrangement(besides the ones explicitly listed.)..."

You seem to have a lot of faith in the ability of nine unelected dictators to protect your rights. In a world governed by an unrestrained, tyrannical judiciary and not by law, anything is possible.

What would happen if the courts were to come under the sway of people who don't particularly like people who engage in whatever private conduct you like to engage in. Unrestrained by the obligation to follow the Constitution, the Common Law precedents and State Law, few obstacles would exist before such a tyrannical court if it chose to discover rights that could be dangerous to you. For example, the right of an individual to protect himself physically from an unwanted homosexual advance. (Not suggesting that I know anything about you, just an example).

There is clearly no such right in the Common Law or the Constitution. But in your world, the Supreme Court could dream it up, because a majority of its members think that it is right.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
189 posted on 06/27/2003 8:54:48 AM PDT by irish_links
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
Gee I didn't see any latin in the Constitution. It's the corporate lawyer culture which is strangling America
190 posted on 06/27/2003 9:16:02 AM PDT by Rodsomnia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
bump
191 posted on 06/27/2003 10:10:34 AM PDT by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Many of his decisions would have been abhorrent to the Framers(though not all of them, I imagine.)

Skywalk, do you think the Framers would have approved of the idea of justices of the Supreme Court writing the moral code for our society?

192 posted on 06/27/2003 1:12:01 PM PDT by betty boop (Nothing is outside of us, but we forget this at every sound. -- Nietzsche)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
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

High percentage? I don't doubt that it's disproportionate to the heterosexual population, but how high are you saying? Also, do you consider homosexual males and females all together, or do you take into account that lesbians have a significantly lower infection rate?

Monogamy is not part of the gay lifestyle


Assumes that all homosexuals live in exactly the same way. I've met enough to tell you that this is false. I've met quite a few homosexuals who were non-monogamous (a worrisome amount), but I've also met homosexuals in totally monogamous relationships. Of course, someone can say "Well, they're just lying", which is really presumptious on their part.

how many of these "marriages" do you believe would actually have any fidelity?

I don't know. Do all heterosexual marriages have fidelity?

Do you honestly believe that they aren't going to use the spousal benefits?

Well, I assume that many want said benefits in order to use them.

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?

Probably not, because it would not be an equal arrangement.
193 posted on 06/27/2003 1:40:38 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: metacognative
Every teenage..normal..boy knows that a a man looking at him as a girl would gives him the creeps.

I would hope that a normal teenage girl would get the creeps from an adult man looking at her as a teenage boy would.
194 posted on 06/27/2003 1:42:57 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
We had one praising Scalia's dissent in the Griswold case, which was a law prohibiting(or was it merely regulating) the use of contraception between a married man and his wife.

I don't think that Scalia was able to dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (which in fact banned the use of contraceptives altogether) because he was not a Supreme Court Justice in 1968.
195 posted on 06/27/2003 2:01:08 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
at least you know normal...
196 posted on 06/27/2003 2:06:40 PM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Skywalk, the ninth amendment doesn't grant any federally enforceable rights whatsoever.

There was some concern during the debate over the Bill of Rights about subjects that were not addressed. The Bill of Rights was designed to guarantee that the federal government could not restrict our rights, and several rights were specifically listed (free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.). There was worry that the federal government might assume that they could restrict rights not listed, by claiming that they were only banned from restricting those rights actually cited in the Bill of Rights' text.

The ninth amendment was drafted to solve that problem. It says that the enumeration of certain rights does not deny the existence of other rights retained by the people. However, note that the language is negative. It says the government (which meant the federal government, as the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states at all) can't DENY the existence of other rights, whatever they may be. But it in no way grants the federal government the power to determine what those rights are, and to impose them on the states. Those rights are left to the voters and the state governments they elect for hashing out in the political process.

This is why it took constitutional amendments to ban slavery and give women federally guaranteed voting rights. Justice John Marshall couldn't "interpret" the ninth amendment as guaranteeing a right not to be enslaved. Nor could Justice Holmes decades later find a "right of women to vote" in the ninth amendment. They couldn't do that because there is no, as in ZERO, federal judicial power in the ninth amendment vis a vis the states. The whole purpose of the amendment was to keep the federal government, including the courts, out of the states on any matter where the Constitution was silent.

It required the feds to respect, for example, both Wyoming's law granting women the vote, and New York's law denying them the vote. If you didn't like one of those laws, your options were to change the law within the state in question, or get two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states to amend the Constitution. The suffragettes did both, working state by state, and also working toward the 19th amendment, which eventually passed.

"Liberal" activist judges, however, have taken it upon themselves on abortion, sodomy, and many other issues to simply declare that they "found" a right to do those things hidden somewhere in some vague privacy concept, or whatever, and are using raw judicial power to impose their agenda on the country.

And, by the way, I've seen a few posts claiming that this "privacy rights" stuff can be used to overturn IRS regulations or gun laws. Not a chance in the world of that happening, because the judges only strike down laws they disagree with under this concept. It isn't a principle that's applied across the board. It's the whim of the judges. And the judges who created this "privacy right" are lefties who adore the IRS and love gun control, so "privacy" will never be invoked against them. It will only be invoked against traditional morality since legal sodomy and abortion actually cause government to expand, as I've mentioned elsewhere.

197 posted on 06/27/2003 2:49:43 PM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: irish_links
Good stuff! You know your history!
198 posted on 06/27/2003 2:58:39 PM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: puroresu; Skywalk; PhiKapMom; Polycarp; aristeides
Any new statute prohibiting anal sex would have to apply to different sex couples and same sex couples equally. In addition, it would have to state protection of public health as its legislative purpose. Only then could it escape the shredders of Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy.

Sexual Transmission

Of the sexual transfer mechanisms, the highest probability of transfer is clearly that of unprotected anal sex. Anal sex between an HIV positive male and an uninfected partner, either female or male, can result in transmission of the virus once in every three to ten sexual acts (1/3 to 1/10). That rests in sharp contrast to the probability of transfer through unprotected vaginal sex from an HIV positive male to an uninfected female (1/75 to 1/300), or the opposite transmission from an HIV positive female to an uninfected male through unprotected vaginal sex (1/300 to (1/1000).

Oral sex is also a mechanism of transmission, but the small number of verified cases of such transmission, and the fact that oral sex is often accompanied by other forms of sexual activity, make it difficult to estimate a probability. There do exist verified cases of oral sex transmission, both heterosexual and homosexual; the probability is low, but quite real. A recent report indicates that persons with allergies, asthma, eczema, and allergic meningitis are more susceptible to orogenital transfer, presumably because of the excess of lymphocytes responding to allergy-induced inflammations in the mouth and throat.

Anal sex is a more likely mechanism of transmission than vaginal sex, primarily because that part of the body, unlike the vagina, is not evolutionary adapted for the physical activity of sexual intercourse. Simply put, the lower end of the large intestine (rectum) is a thin-walled tube that breaks easily, bleeds when it breaks, and has a major supply of lymphocytes and macrophages (including the CD4 group) waiting to be infected by HIV.

From the perspective of functional anatomy, unprotected anal intercourse is biologically stupid! It is an open invitation to serious damage of the rectum as well as to the easy transfer of any sexually transmitted disease such as gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, papilloma and Hepatitis B. Hepatitis B (for which there is a vaccine) is more easily transmitted sexually than HIV, and results in the death of some 20%-25% of those who acquire an infection.

http://www.arcmesa.com/pdf/hivfun0100.pdf

Note: Your browser will need a PDF reader to read this file. The Google search engine will provide a text version here.

199 posted on 06/27/2003 2:59:48 PM PDT by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Scalia bump!

Thanks for posting!
200 posted on 06/27/2003 3:02:43 PM PDT by proud American in Canada ("We are a peaceful people. Yet we are not a fragile people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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