Replies

"...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.

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.