Posted on 12/06/2002 5:57:06 PM PST by Tina Johnson
The Supreme Court will hear three cases that should be of particular interest to conservatives, as the subsequent rulings could put significant weight behind two of the Right’s grander tenets. First, Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court will determine the validity of anti-sodomy laws in 13 States, concerning the 1998 arrests of John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were caught in Lawrence’s apartment engaging in acts of sodomy. (The two eventually plead no contest and paid $200 fines.)
Now most Right-wingers will read that and wonder, “What conservative tenet does this address, exactly?” None, unless you take seriously Ronald Reagan’s long held wish to get government off of the people’s backs and out of their lives. President Reagan was speaking of the federal government, of course, but taking the extra step to include State and local governments is not only desirable but logical, at which point one must admit getting off of one’s back should include not giving a damn what happens in his bedroom, provided all are adults, all consent and the neighbors aren’t being kept awake. (All right, that last bit is self-serving, but still.)
We are speaking here of laws in 13 States banning sodomy, nine of which are for both sexes (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia), the other four pertaining strictly to gays (these are Texas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma). How does a municipality go about enforcing said laws, exactly? In the case of Lawrence and Garner, a false report about an armed intruder was made to police, who then walked into the unlocked apartment and proceeded to make a federal case out of it. Literally. If not for an unlocked door, these State laws would probably be allowed to stand. And let’s make no mistake about it, they should all be overturned.
Put aside for a moment the normal arguments regarding whether or not one has a constitutional right to sodomy, or whether or not the integrity of the anti-AIDS crusade can be upheld, and consider just this: Part of having and enjoying autonomy – and in this it is meant the autonomy of human beings, not just American citizens – is being able to make up one’s mind regarding those activities not necessarily typical of his contemporaries. A man or woman of sound mind and majority can choose whether or not to undergo or skip cancer treatments, whether or not they can be kept alive artificially should some horrible trauma befall them, whether or not their organs can be harvested and donated to those in need. To suggest the same adults who are presumably capable of making these decisions cannot decide rationally on the matter of oral and / or anal sex, and must therefore be overseen by law (no matter how generally unenforceable) is ludicrous. It’s an idea that supplants the ability of adults to decide for themselves what happens within their own walls; private walls, after all.
The second and third cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court will consider the University of Michigan’s open race-based preference admissions policy. Here two white students were turned away from the University’s undergraduate and law schools respectively in favor of “minority applicants.” The interest to conservatives is obvious: It should be said by the Supreme Court that every man and woman trying to get into college should be considered by the weight of their intellect, not the color of their skin (to adapt Reverend King’s well spoken expression).
It’s fine for one to wish upon the Court the wisdom to make the proper decision (and I do), but how come no one has ever complained about racial preferences on the University’s basketball court and football field? The University of Michigan has for years produced basketball and football teams that have not only contended for Big Ten and national championships, but have won them, as well. At some point the dictum “Whitey Really Isn’t Needed Here, Unless He’s a Quarterback or a Center” came from on high, and not so much as one fit was ever pitched. Weren’t nitwits brought onto campus for the sole purpose of putting the University within shouting distance of one championship or another (Yes; e.g., Chris Webber), and therefore haven’t large bags of cash been dumped on administration desks, one after the other, as a result?
Well sure, that’s because we’re talking about sports, and the standards there have come to be held at different levels for sports teams, especially in large Division 1-A schools like … well … the University of Michigan. So the Right should know, in this matter, even if the Court rules on the side of logic, there will always, always, be race-based preferences on the college campus, some preferences just stated more loudly than others.
He's twenty-five now, and he does understand. He has apologized for his foolishness.
Come back when you're older.
I'm twenty-seven. Perhaps someday you'll learn how to argue without saying "I'm right," and walking away.
The fault is not that of the Constitution, but of all of us, for the last couple of generations, who weren't vigilant in seeing to it that it was constantly safeguarded.
The Constitution cannot defend itself. When the stewards of this government, from the President down to the rawest military recruit, take their oaths of office or of enlistment, they swear "to protect and defend the Constitution."
That ought to tell us that there are things from which the Constitution must BE defended.
Too many have been asleep at the switch. It is not the fault of the Constitution; that document is sacred and as near perfect as the mind of man (in concert with that of God) can conceive. The fault is that it is NOT an instrument that can protect us from oppression if we ourselves are not willing to take a hand in defending it.
You give them FAR too much credit.
Frankly, I don't care what people do in their bedroom. I think the sodomy laws are silly and unenforceable. But people should be freaking out about this case because it would set a horrible constitutional precedent in two regards:
1. It would extend the fanciful and a-constutional Roe vs Wade 'right of privacy' very significantly, making it much harder for future supreme courts to limit or overrule Roe. Bad constitutional law is bad for everyone and is grounds for freaking out, as you put it.
2. A decision overruling the Georgia statute would have the effect of federalizing the regulation of morality and public health. Those decisiions are best kept at the state and local level.
Laugh out loud if you want. But each bad constitutional decision takes us one step further from a constitutional federal republic. This case would be a particualarly big step.
One of the points made constantly by our Founders is that there is no way that a Republic like ours can long stand, without an educated electorate.
The Left realized this back in the dark days of their rise to prominence in the Sixties.
That is why their assault on our public education system--a system long held as the cornerstone of our success as a Free Republic--was so essential to their gaining power.
When the Left sees the "failure" of public education, they don't see it as a "bad thing," but as a good thing. They see their plan working. They see themselves, the "Alphas" of the "Brave New World," making sure that the "Betas," "Gammas," and so on down the line are kept stupid and in their place, so that their elite class can reign unfettered by TRUE Republican principles.
But I would also point out that the presence and success of things like Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh's program, and many other such alternative sources of education, are signs that the Founders wrought far better than they knew.
I remember my mother, a "paleo-conservative" before the word was ever coined, being so glad to discover the great educational materials from The Heritage Foundation back in the 70s. She said at the time "these are the things that they used to teach us in school back in the Fifties. I thought they had all become exinct."
The flame still burns; but we have to admit and understand that there is no homogeneity any longer. The principles of our Republic, which were once unquestioned and revered by nearly all, have powerful and determined enemies, even in government.
Sen. Joe McCarthy was more right than he ever knew (which is one reason why he is placed third or fourth on the list behind Hitler, etc., on the list of those publicly reviled in our day).
We have to keep fighting, and I for one am very glad that resources like FR exist to keep the flame bright.
How am I defrauded? How am I forced?
The typical twenty-seven-year-old today isn't married, is likely still drifting in and out of college (or at a semi-skilled job), spends a lot of time and money on entertainment, plays about a half-hour per day more video games than a kid ten years younger (because he doesn't have homework to do), and in general is a slacker.
If that doesn't describe you, I'll be you know a lot of close buds that it DOES describe.
Y'know, I'm not sure I have a ready answer to this. When the 2000 election happened, I was sure it was the beginning of the end of things--even though Bush won by the skin of his teeth. The fact that more people had voted for Gore convinced me that it was all but over.
But this last election gave me hope once more. I began to see things a bit more in context. It seems that the problems we had in 2000 were (1) Democrat vote fraud, and (2) too many conservatives who didn't trust GWB because of his name.
The fact is, that 9/11 changed the equation for a lot of people. It shook some from their slumber and their reverie. They saw Mr. Bush for who he really is: A leader. That got a lot of conservatives on his side.
Then, you had a lot of people who hadn't paid attention much sitting up and taking notice. They saw the Democrats, in this time of crisis, for who WE CONSERVATIVES have always known they really are: Haters of America.
What they saw nauseated them, and as a result polling done in the past year or so has shown more people self-identifying as "conservatives" and "Republicans." All this talk of "kitchen table issues" by the Terry McAuliffes of the Dem party was poppy-cock; the only "kitchen table issue" people have become concerned about is "are these terrorists going to be targeting me and my family next?"
That's why even with all the incredible negative world opinion (supposedly) and the Leftist media carping, Mr. Bush's approval numbers are STILL through the roof, and the war on Saddam is quite well supported. Enough people have seemingly awoken to the reality that there are mean and evil people out there who wish us harm.
And it even seems like they're beginning to recognize the mean and evil people WITHIN OUR OWN BORDERS who hate us as well.
As a result, you don't have people like Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-AL) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), both big boosters of Middle Eastern terror-coddlers, to kick around any more.
I think that 9/11 may come to be seen as a blessing in disguise for this Republic, after the crisis (God willing) passes.
My, what a fantastic, er, debate style you have. Claim I have the wisdom of a teenager, then when that's shown to be wrong claim that someone my age is "like" a teenager. Again, "I'm right", with nothing but ad hominem attacks to back it up. Once is a coincedence, twice is the beginning of a pattern...
At least I'm old and wise enough to realize stereotyping someone I don't know anything at all about is stupid and that government shouldn't be criminalizing any sort of sexual acts carried out in private between consenting adults. I'll give you the last word. I wonder what it will be?
No, he can't.
That is, not everybody sees fraud as a crime. I do, and I think people should too -- just the way sodomy is a crime.
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.