Freepers In Support Of The Supreme Court

Vanity | 06/28/03 | shred

[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.

[colorado tanker]

I agree. We only have a Republic if we can keep it.

[f.Christian]

Time to buy Ann Coulter's book --- TREASON ... the media -- govt -- schools of America are controlled by communists !

[muawiyah]

Glad you can agree with the Texas case, but what about the follow-up Kansas case where the Supreme Court endorsed the right of an adult male homosexual to attack a minor male?

Then, they turned loose all the Catholic priests who had been convicted of messing with minors in California.

No doubt it will get worse as the pedophiles on the Supreme Court start feeling their oats.

[Sparta]

I oppose the sodomy laws in question. I feel that government has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults. However, I deplore the sodomy decision Thursday. It was a naked assualt on a State's right to regulate quality of life issues. Also, this does open up a slippery slope.

[AppyPappy]

If I decide to have sex with a 12 year-old in my bedroom, that should be protected by the Right to Privacy according to the Supremes.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Count me in....

[muawiyah]

"...removed forcibly..."

from each other and little children perhaps, eh?!

Give an investigator 10 minutes on their computers and that SC will be changed forever.

[Diddle E. Squat]

So you are saying that the ends justify the means?

I agree with Clarence Thomas(a true conservative) that the law should have been rescinded by the Texas legislature, but the federal court was NOT the proper venue.

But hey, if I get my way, then who cares if it is constitutional, just, or the will of the people? Who cares about the ballot box? Sounds like a Dem argument from Florida 2000.

[Republican Wildcat]

So you think it is approporiate for the Supreme Court to create new law and cultural standards via judicial fiat. alrighty...

[colorado tanker]

Annie's great - she really socks it to 'em. But you broke the cardinal FR rule that Annie can't be mentioned without posting her pix. :)

[muawiyah]

By a 17 year old is one thing; by an 18 year old is an entirely different manner, and this was by an adult, not a minor. The local prosecutor who put that guy in jail probably ought to be investigated. There are undoubtedly OTHER laws which could have been used to place and keep a pedophile in prison. After all, Kansas is the buckle on the Bible Belt and it's inconceivable they ever intended to assist pedophilia.

[AndyJackson]

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.

I don't think this point is quite so clear as you make it out to be. First invasion of privacy derives is a common law tort that is a lot older than our constitution, and we adopted English Common Law pretty much wholesale as our legal foundation. Second, the prohibition against unreasonable searches was designed to protect just exactly what if not primarily your right to privacy? Unreasonable searches is exactly how the government does invade your right to privacy, or did until the electronic spying industry created other ways to do it as well. As the ninth ammedment states, the enumerated rights shall not disparage other rights retained by the people.

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

How very very eloquently stated. First you dismiss him with an order, then you make a statement for which you could have no possible evidence absent a rather comprehensive polling of Freepers.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Dolt. Those were two students in a school for the developmentally disabled. One was 14, one was 3 weeks past his 18th birthday.

If you haven't bothered the read the entirety of the facts, then you might trying a nice cup of STFU.

[puroresu]

The problem with libertarians is they support big government as a way to limit small government. If they think a local ordinance is "oppressive", they join with the government-worshipping "liberals" and bring in the feds to strike down the local ordinance. From that day forward, the feds claim jurisdiction over the matter in question. The "liberals", having expanded federal power with help from the libertarians, snicker and high five one another. The libertarians then scratch their heads wondering what went wrong. They'll be doing it again when the full ramifications of this moronic sodomy ruling are realized.

Unless, of course, you think the following people (who no doubt applaud the sodomy ruling) are freedom loving folks who want to get government off our backs:

Ted Kennedy
Hillary Clinton
Barbara Boxer
Al Gore
Dianne Feinstein
Tom Harkin
Howard Dean
Chuck Schumer
Barney Frank
Sheila Jackson-Lee
John Kerry
Dick Gephardt
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
Patrick Leahy

And many, many more....

[AndyJackson]

If I decide to have sex with a 12 year-old in my bedroom, that should be protected by the Right to Privacy according to the Supremes.

You have put words in their mouths that they did not utter.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So, do hetero married couples have the right to such acts in their own bedrooms, or should the states criminalize what they do?

Your personal tendency to say "ewwwww" really shouldn't dictate what the law is for consenting adults.

[eno_]

Guess I'll pray and leave it all in God's hands.>/i>

Good plan. I bet if you tried, you could think of 1000 things government shouldn't try to fix because it simply can't, no matter how well intentioned the laws are and how much of a motherhood the cause might be.

[eno_]

Polyamory is only slightly more esoteric than capital-L Libertarianism. They both get caught up in theory too much to have time left over for actual sex.

[muawiyah]

Here we are talking about the three pedophiles on the Supreme Court and how they are taking care of their little buddies and you want to change the subject to what married couples do?

May I ask why you wish to change the subject?

[eno_]

I think yo are right to be concerned about states' rights. But, OTOH, ther is that pesky word "liberty" in the constitution. It's been ignored too long. I don't know if this was the best way to open the door to questioning whole classes of laws, but it sure will be interesting when someone points out that preemptory financial disclosure before there is any suspicion of lawbreaking might also be on the wrong side of the line. I want to be free to do pwerverted things with my money and other property.