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

Skip to comments.

Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court
Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

Posted on 06/28/2003 12:38:52 PM PDT by shred

I think there are many Freepers who are tired of this constant bashing of the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas. I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.

Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is all about - the individual having primacy over the state. It disturbs me that there are so many who wanted to see the state prevail in its desire to regulate private, individual freedoms.

I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudiciary; activistsupremecourt; aganda; barfalert; blahblahblah; buhbye; conservatives; courtlegislation; dontletthedoorhityou; downourthroats; dusrupter; federalizeeverything; freedom; gay; gayagenda; homosexual; homosexualagenda; individualliberty; judicialfiat; lawrencevtexas; lessgovernment; liberty; moron; nakedpowergrab; peckerhead; readtheconstitution; samesexdisorder; strikeupthebanned; tenthamendmentdeath; thisaccountisbanned; troll; vikingkitties; wholecloth; whoneedsfederalism; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-348 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2003 12:38:52 PM PDT by shred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shred
Your post is a joke, right?
2 posted on 06/28/2003 12:39:59 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
I hope you're wearing your flak vest and asbestos boxers.
3 posted on 06/28/2003 12:40:21 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
I see then. We don't want to know how you are going to be celebrating this weekend, thank you.
4 posted on 06/28/2003 12:40:37 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
In a few years, all the gnashing of teeth and wailing over this one will seem, in retrospect, to be much ado over nothing.
5 posted on 06/28/2003 12:41:21 PM PDT by shred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
Heh. I have both on, yep.
6 posted on 06/28/2003 12:41:53 PM PDT by shred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Odd thing to say coming from someone who has a tag line of "Fighting for freedom and *having fun*".

My mammy once told me that those in glass houses...blah blah blah...
7 posted on 06/28/2003 12:43:59 PM PDT by Not Fooled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shred
"I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government."

...Uh, by telling the State of Texas (and by extension, 49 other states) they had no right to develop and enforce community standards?

Frankly, Lawrence legalized prostitution nation wide.

8 posted on 06/28/2003 12:44:43 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
Wasn't this to be posted under HUMOR?
9 posted on 06/28/2003 12:45:19 PM PDT by JOE6PAK (Ambivalent? Well, yes and no.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
Shred, meet the big government conservatives. Big government conservatives, meet Shred.
10 posted on 06/28/2003 12:45:36 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
ahem...you are missing the point here.

The role of the supreme court is not to come up with good ideas or mediate between right and wrong, or decide between conservative and liberal.

Your post indicates that the so-called conservative "policy" handed down was consistent with FR beliefs. I won't even debate tha point.

The role of the supreme court is to deicde what IS in the constitution and what is NOT. In this case they decided that there is a right to privacy IN THE CONSTITUTION......THERE ISN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was a dumb ass decision -- even if you think a right to privacy is a good idea, that's not the point. IT ISN"T IN THE CONSTITUTION period.

What they did was legislate, as liberal judges have been doing for too damn long.

Hit the road Jack, the Lawrence decision was inconssiten with what most FReepers believe in.

11 posted on 06/28/2003 12:46:05 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Well, my point exactly.

How can one support Big Government and call themselves a conservative.

I think they're mutually exclusive positions.
12 posted on 06/28/2003 12:46:57 PM PDT by shred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: shred
Individual liberty is at the heart of what conservatism is

amd morality is at the heart of individual liberty.

As John Adams said...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
If we are to stay free, we must have both. That was the genius and basis for the entire "experiment" IMHO.

The further we get away from those fundamental principles on either count, the more danger to our Republic, to our way of life and to our liberty.

Just my opinion.

Jeff

13 posted on 06/28/2003 12:47:20 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Not Fooled
Odd thing to say coming from someone who has a tag line of "Fighting for freedom and *having fun*". My mammy once told me that those in glass houses...blah blah blah...

What a stupid thing to say. My tag line has to do with the quick-whitted sense of humor, and biting sarcasm that conservatives are known for. That's how I'm having fun. I reidicule liberals in my home and at my work. It's what I'm paid to do. Just because the 'mos all label their perverse habits as "fun," it doesn't become the definition for civilized society.

14 posted on 06/28/2003 12:49:26 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shred
let's see...

They decide against equal protection on a 'moral' basis by affirming AA then state that they cannot make 'moral' judgements when applying equal protection

that about right? series
15 posted on 06/28/2003 12:50:42 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
lib·er·ty
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant


I beleive Liberty is in the Constitution, is it not?
16 posted on 06/28/2003 12:51:22 PM PDT by Nexus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I see then. We don't want to know how you are going to be celebrating this weekend, thank you.

I'm not why this but this reminded me of an exchange with Wolfe Blitzer, Jonathan Turley, and Ken O'Connor. Defeated by O'Connor's argument that anal sex had serious negative health consequences, Turley only managed to respond with the claim that he didn't accept that this was true. I thought, "Why is Turley defending sodomy instead of the law?" Just a passing thought.

17 posted on 06/28/2003 12:52:50 PM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shred
I agree. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, however, I agree even less with the nanny state telling free men what they can and can't do in their homes.
18 posted on 06/28/2003 12:52:51 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace ((the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
All social engineering is wrong ... unless it is big brother pc leftism --- then we have pc sodomy of the state shoved in our minds - homes - schools!
19 posted on 06/28/2003 12:52:55 PM PDT by f.Christian (( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shred
I'm certainly happy with that decision. The government has no business restricting private consensual activity. That was a big win for freedom.

Now, on the U 0f Michigan decision - whatever were they thinking? Freedom, not diversity, is what we're about. Diversity happens, or doesn't, based upon how people behave, now how government thinks they should behave.
20 posted on 06/28/2003 12:54:48 PM PDT by kcar (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
Are you kidding me?
21 posted on 06/28/2003 12:55:22 PM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.)

If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

22 posted on 06/28/2003 12:56:28 PM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
I think Boortz said it best in his latest:

"My view on this Supreme Court decision is strictly libertarian. No action taken by a human being should be considered a crime by the state unless that action deprives another human being of their life, liberty or property through either force or fraud. Two consenting adults participating in the sexual act of their choice in a private setting deprives no other person of their right to life, liberty or property. Nobody is harmed, nobody is defrauded. I do not want the government in my bedroom. If I don’t want the government in my bedroom then what is the justification for asking the government to go regulate someone else’s sexual conduct? "

23 posted on 06/28/2003 12:56:54 PM PDT by PaulJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
The only freepers tired of it are LIBERTARIANS.

And this is a conservative news forum, not a libertarian news forum.

So, the people who are upset are people that really don't matter.
24 posted on 06/28/2003 12:58:47 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Well obviously that's what you meant... But riddle me this..

How are you getting paid for your quick wit when you couldn't pick up on the fact that I was simply responding in kind to your comment aimed towards shred?

Who are you working for anyways?
25 posted on 06/28/2003 12:59:24 PM PDT by Not Fooled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
even if you think a right to privacy is a good idea, that's not the point. IT ISN"T IN THE CONSTITUTION period.

Well, if it the Constitution you are on about, then you are wrong. The Constitution gives the courts authority to interpret the Constitution. To check and balance that power, the Constitution gives the legislative and executive branches other powers, and the people the power to amend the Constitution. Since there is no groundswell of either the executive or legislative branches nor the people in general clamering for a Constitutional amendment, there is NO Constitutional crisis, and therefore the interpretation of the Court stands on valid Constitutional grounds.

Now you have a different opinion but if your complaint is solely along Constitutional grounds, you are mistaken. You may have religious or ideological reasons -- but that is different than Constitutional reasons.

26 posted on 06/28/2003 1:00:20 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shred
By the way, the ruling actually increased big government by telling the states what they can do.
27 posted on 06/28/2003 1:01:29 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shred
When the court majority overtakes the legislative process the result is instability. Instability threatens liberty.

Have you read Sowell's 'Vision of the Anointed' or 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice'? I think you would find these at least intellectually rewarding even if you disagree with the analysis.

28 posted on 06/28/2003 1:01:37 PM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
If you're referring to the case I think you are, the perpetrator was 19. If his victim had been female, he would have had a much shorter sentence He deserves to be punished for his actions, but the double standard is wrong.
29 posted on 06/28/2003 1:02:32 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shred
I think there are many Freepers who are tired of this constant bashing of the Supreme Court for Lawrence v. Texas. I think they did a great job and stuck a knife in the heart of big government.

Then you have no idea what happened. This was a trampling of the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers. This is a naked power grab by the SCOTUS at the expense of the states and of the people.

The reasoning of the decision is based on the broad, vague, and new-found Constitutional principle of the "expression of essential humanity," and will serve as the fulcrum by which the increasing power of the federal government is leveraged in unimaginable ways in the future.


30 posted on 06/28/2003 1:04:04 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Yeah, there's a winning position: "You home is your castle except: a) For tax enforcement; b) Because nobody should have stranger sex than I do; c) Because you shouldn't smoke pot either; d) Hey! That blow job is sodomy, too; e) You might be gambling on the Internet; Etc." That about sums up JBT-oriented Taliban Republicanism.

Or look at it this way: Buggery has been around since Man came down fromt the trees, but tax withholding has only been around since WWII. Which do you think we ought to try to eradicate?

31 posted on 06/28/2003 1:05:07 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear.

I think that was the point. The punishment for hetero underage sex was much less.

32 posted on 06/28/2003 1:05:36 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
Yep. Now that some prisoners are now being released because of the idiot ruling, such as the guy doing a 15 year sentence for having homosexual sex with a boy of 14, we are just tickled pink. (Pardon the pun.) If it had been with a girl of 14, the law is quite clear. According to the Supremes, now it is okay for statutory rape agains someone of the same sex? The 6 justices who voted for this should be removed forcibly.

Two comments on this. The first is -- I find it amusing that the punishment for a guy that apparently likes to give oral sex to men is to be sent to prison. Talk about brother rabbit being tossed into the briar patch! The second things is -- in that state, oral sex on a 14 year old girl by a 17 year old guy would have been a maximum sentence of 3 years. This guy had already served 3 years. That is why he was let out.

33 posted on 06/28/2003 1:06:42 PM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
By the way, the ruling actually increased big government by telling the states what they can do.

It reduces the power of both the states and the federal government to tell citizens what they can do.

34 posted on 06/28/2003 1:08:28 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Name one unenumerated right.

Now name another one.

Keep that up for a little bit.

Now do you think privacy is excluded? How about in light of explicit protection against unreasonable search?

The specifics of this case was that the defendants were busted for buggery after a neighbor complained about them. A more sceptical approach to barging into people's lives on the part of police is a very good idea.
35 posted on 06/28/2003 1:08:44 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kcar
I agree with you on both counts. They were correct in the Texas case, but they were attempting to have government engineer an outcome (utilizing an utterly unconstitutional methodology, imho) in the Michigan case.

Having said that, these guys were mostly appointed by Republican presidents, and I'd be hard pressed to figure out how we are going to get more conservative, liberty minded justices. We certainly don't want a Democrat Prez appointing them!
36 posted on 06/28/2003 1:08:48 PM PDT by shred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: shred
....as I can see by the other posts and your answer to them, you in fact were not kidding, but this is the biggest joke ever,****I say, good job, to a consistent, conservative SC! You did exactly what you're supposed to be doing.....go back to high school and try to learn the difference between a conservative and a liberal this time!!!!
37 posted on 06/28/2003 1:09:15 PM PDT by GrandMoM ("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
W-O-W babe, you're on a roll! :-)
38 posted on 06/28/2003 1:10:55 PM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
try to learn the difference between a conservative and a liberal

He meant conservative in the individualist freedom sense, not conservative in the fundamentalist American Taliban sense.

39 posted on 06/28/2003 1:11:48 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
"... I find it amusing that the punishment for a guy that apparently likes to give oral sex to men is to be sent to prison. "

The recipient of this pervert's unnatural affection was a 14 year old boy, not a man. And if it had been my 14 year old, the perpetrator would not have gone to prison -- I would have punished him personally. Use your imagination on that one.

40 posted on 06/28/2003 1:12:20 PM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: eno_
"Or look at it this way: Buggery has been around since Man came down fromt the trees"

So has homocide.

"...tax withholding has only been around since WWII."

Same with laws governing the sale of uraniam and plutoniom abroad...what's your point?

My point is that SCOTUS has basically vacated the 10th Amendment with this decision.

41 posted on 06/28/2003 1:13:18 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
The reasoning of the decision is based on the broad, vague, and new-found Constitutional principle of the "expression of essential humanity," and will serve as the fulcrum by which the increasing power of the federal government is leveraged in unimaginable ways in the future.

Yeah, "right of privacy" has you control freaks all in a tizzy.

42 posted on 06/28/2003 1:13:24 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord; TommyDale; Coronal
Justices Void Prison Term Given Gay Teenager in Kansas

That case is on this thread. (For anyone who might not be familiar with it)

43 posted on 06/28/2003 1:14:04 PM PDT by csvset (White Devil for Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: shred
Since gay activist groups are already planning to use Justice Scalia's scathing dissent as a basis for suing for "more equality" I stand by my prediction that this was a BAD desicion which will have repercussions on everything from taxes to health insurance. The laqsuit game has just begun.

"Standing of States to Represent Their Citizens.--The right of a State to sue as parens patriae, in behalf of its citizens, has long been recognized.381 No State, however, may be parens patriae of her citizens ''as against the Federal Government.''382 But a State may sue on behalf of the economic welfare of its citizens to protect them from environmental harm383 and to enjoin other States and private parties from engaging in actions harmful to the economic or other well- being of its citizens.384 The State must be more than a nominal party without a real interest of its own, merely representing the interests of particular citizens who cannot represent themselves;385 it must articulate an interest apart from those of private parties that partakes of a ''quasi-sovereign interest'' in the health and well-being, both physical and economic, of its residents in general, although there are suggestions that the restrictive definition grows out of the Court's wish to constrain its original jurisdiction and may not fit such suits brought in the lower federal courts"

44 posted on 06/28/2003 1:15:33 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
The only freepers tired of it are LIBERTARIANS.
And this is a conservative news forum, not a libertarian news forum.
So, the people who are upset are people that really don't matter.

Conservatives, small government lovers are tired of it.

The only people who aren't tired of it are the Neofascist religious right, who want to tell other people how to run their lives.

The only single difference between y'all and socialists is the list of things you want people locked up for.

So9

45 posted on 06/28/2003 1:16:03 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (The voices tell me to stay home and clean the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Frankly, Lawrence legalized prostitution nation wide.

I think it is more likely to end up being applied to private drug use than prostitution.

46 posted on 06/28/2003 1:17:31 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
What's really interesting is that people call me a neocon...but I can quote the Constitution and they can only spin it.
47 posted on 06/28/2003 1:18:22 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: shred
It isn't the elements of the case itself. It is the fact that this was a matter that should have been resolved by the people through their individuual state legislatures.
48 posted on 06/28/2003 1:19:27 PM PDT by Az Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shred
I tend to agree.

These antiquated sodomy laws are not based on sound legal footing, but are the product of human social prohibitions.

The Texas version was particularly bad because it only covered sodomy between two males and nothing else. It was not applied fairly to begin with.

There are but 12 or 13 states that still have these things on the books.

I see this as no big deal and certainly no big win for the gay population either. prosecution of sodomy laws between consenting adult was practically unheard of until this case. I believe there was one other in Wisconsin or someplace.

The court did ok by me and I am far from a gay rights supporter nor do I even think about them much.(except when they get in my face)

49 posted on 06/28/2003 1:21:43 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Negotiate!! .............(((Blam!.)))........... "Now who else wants to negotiate?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Not Fooled
Who are you working for anyways?

I choose to remain anonymous when I engage in free-wheeling discussion of MY views. When I make political comments in public under my own name, those comments then become associated with the person I work for.

If I told you who I work for then he/she would have my views associated with him/her. It's not fair, but that's what happens in the public policy arena.

50 posted on 06/28/2003 1:23:41 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-348 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