Posted on 08/11/2005 11:56:51 AM PDT by hinterlander
So in other words, if the SC Justice is true to the Constitution, then morality will prevail. I believe that is the point we have been trying to make all along. The immorality enters into the mix when the Constitution is deviated from (Roe. vs. Wade for example). The problem is, Morality changes with time. There was a time not long ago when makeup on a woman was a sign that she was a slut. Once upon a time, bathing wiht soap was considered a sin. The principles of conservatism on the other hand, are timeless.
If someone (or their child) is so desperate to sit around and switch back and forth to the Playboy channel in hopes that the scrambling might unscramble and allow himself a sub-second glimpse of a boob, there are bigger problems here.
It is simply out of the federal gov't jurisdiction to dictate what cable providers may or may not provide.
SD
Of course it doesn't. The Supreme Court itself has ruled as much.
However, Playboy is not obscenity. No proesecutor in this country would try to make such a case in court with a straight face.
Excellent point. And very well said.
Cable is a completely voluntary pay service. Don't think Comcast is doing a good enough job of dealing with signal bleed and whatnot? Don't subscribe. It's a very easy and government-free solution.
Your idea of "freedom" is to have us free like ancient Romans, to numb our minds on modern equivalent of gladiator games.
Again, nobody is making you buy cable.
If the Supreme Court were really interested in "rolling back" the state, they'd outlaw the progressive income tax, most eminent domain, all price controls and most federal economic regulations. That's the stuff that curtails our freedom -- But I guess you're ok with being a serf to the state as long as the porn keeps flowing.
In what way is your little list of complaints in any way relevant to the issue at hand? If you haven't noticed, Roberts is not currently on the Supreme Court, so you can't really blame him for the Court's failures.
Oh, and I should have mentioned racial quotas.
Better that a judge resign from the bench than try to press his own morality when it conflicts with the law.
I guarantee they are not allowed to spew porn into my home. If they are spewing porn into your home, it is YOUR fault, not the village's.
Some people have all the luck.
Read my post at #116. I am not sure we will ever get a fair and balanced look at his past. Hopefully, all the pertinent information will get out, and the right decision will be made. Not sure what else we can do.
Sorry, I guess you already read it. It's been a long day!
" However, Playboy is not obscenity. No proesecutor in this country would try to make such a case in court with a straight face."
I guess you don't watch the Spice channel :)
Actually it's standing up for the rule of law. Which as we all know can be interperted in different ways. The bible does say to submit to the rule of law of legit Governments. So even though he may not agree with "porn" the arguement wasn't about porn. It was a question based on the rule of law.
Conservatives must understand that too. That just because we believe in something does not make it constitutional. We are a people who are sworn to the constitution. If you want the law changed fight to have it changed. Don't hold him accountable for not fighting for what you say Conservatives believe in.
The bible also says to turn the other cheek. However, I'd guess you are for the Iraq war.
Politics and Religion have no business being hand in hand(although personally I don't see a problem with prayer in schools).
Our leaders must lead this country as if there is no God to protect us. We must fight wars and do what is necessary to protect us.
As individuals we must hold ourselves to whatever we believe in. In the battle for souls you must do two things. Do your best to follow your own beliefs and try and convince others that your way is the way to be saved.
Once you meet those two requirements you've done your job(I know I'm way over simplfying this). However, our lives within a recognized system of Gov't is much much more complex.
One of Roberts' best, long time friends is Luttig, whom some here think would have been a better choice, without knowing all that much ( if anything !) about his paper trail.
Mark Levin, who is a much brighter light than Ann is, on Constitutional Law and SCOTUS, thinks that Roberts is okay.
Lots of staunch Conservatives are supporting Roberts.
Ann and a few here, aren't and there is NOTHING that any of them can do about about; Roberts IS the nominee. And those who aren't supporting him now, are just helping the Dems and have fallen for the propaganda put out to divide our side.
Can't say that I do.
I do play poker with a DOJ obscenity prosecutor, though. Even the DOJ admits that mainstream pornogaphy involving only consenting adults and nothing too "weird" is not legally obscene.
FYI
CSPAN has 1997 (Roberts presentation), of how the supreme court works:
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Series&Code=AC&ShowVidNum=7&Rot_Cat_CD=AC&Rot_HT=206&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=100&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=100
Project Oyez (has oral presentations), http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage
Or at: http://www.oyez.org/podcast/?p=9
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.