SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban

FOXnews

[Thane_Banquo]

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.

[ffusco]

Right now, I'm also causing stock clerks to put the wrong expriation date on bags of puppy chow.

Now cut that out!

[Clint N. Suhks]

Read here... try and keep up.

[tpaine]

Cat, -- ya'll's devotion to Clint N. Suhks is admirable. It brings tears to my eyes, it does.

[ninenot]

As Scalia observed, sodomy, whether hetero- or homo- is what is outlawed. That's a compelling State interest in right order.

[El Gato]

It pains me to see how many people on this thread *think* they are for smaller Govt but disagree with the ruling.

It's not inconsistent to want a smaller federal government, while also wanting to retain the power of state governments to make such laws, not to make them, or recind any they now have. They always have made them, including before the federal government was created.

[fooman]

Marriage is for gays, gold diggers and losers.

Family unit? we will all be plugged into the matrix and the hillary will control what we see and taxes will sucked out Intravenously .

[ninenot]

Sinky is much more a libertarian than you suspect. He cannot understand what Right Order has to do with the Constitution.

Means he's about equal to Souter, Kennedy, and the old broads.

[tpaine]

We don't invade homes to find consensual incest either so why are you a hypocrite when it comes to regulating it?
1,380 -suhks-

You have some insane idea that I'm "a hypocrite when it comes to regulating incest"? -- Why?

[ninenot]

Do you think Texas should have the right to make marijuana legal? Gay marriage?

Under the 9th Amendment, yes.

Put it to a vote. See what happens.

[tpaine]

You are making a fool of yourself by reposting your original idiocy. - Thanks.

[ninenot]

Adultery CANNOT be a crime anymore, according to Scalia's dissenting opinion. For that matter, States may not outlaw bestiality or bigamy any more, either.

[Theodore R.]

Considering the lack of support that Santorum's previous remarks received from the White House and his colleagues, I think the last thing the GOP now wants is for this sodomy decision to be discussed in the public forum. I have notice little outrage from the GOP leadership -- in fact, no outrage at all.

[sinkspur]

He cannot understand what Right Order has to do with the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection, which is what O'Connor cited as the reason to strike down the Texas law. Privacy was not the reason to strike down the Texas law.

Right decision for the wrong reason.

[HumanaeVitae]

Off the thread. Just downloaded Scalia's dissent. I'll read that before the majority opinion. Best to save the worst for last.

[ffusco]

Pedophilia is rape of a minor. Minors have no consent to give as a protected class of person.

[Brandon]

SCOTUS really should have that "Stupid, but Constitutional" ink stamp.

They do. It reads, "Cert denied." ;)

[El Gato]

unConstitutional state laws... unless you were perfectly happy with Jim Crow laws.

Jim Crow laws were what the 14th amendment was about, well part in question anyway. The question here is twofold, is privacy one of the "liberties", or "priveleges and immunities" that states are not allowed to violate (without due process in the case of liberties) which leads to the second question of whether such privacy extends to acts of sodomy, or merely to enforcement actions. My read is that "privacy" isn't about what can or can not be made illegal, but rather about enforcement actions. Even the privacy, such as it is, of being "secure in one's person, house, papers and effects", protected by the 4th amendment is only secured against unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not protect any an all actions taken in private. The only possible place to find a right of privacy is in the 9th amendent, but to find one there, and one that protects private sexual conduct at that, one would have to submit some evidence that such a right was recognized at the time of adoption of the 9th amendment.. and that would be a tough row to hoe, IMHO. It would be a lot easier to find a right to smoke pot or opium in private, or even in public, in the 9th amendment, since such things weren't, for the most part, criminalised until the 20th century in most places.

All this is not to say that the states aren't free to put privacy, even sexual privacy, rights into their state constitutions, or even merely pass laws to protect, or recind laws against, such acts.

[tpaine]

"Put it to a vote. See what happens"
-nn-



Our basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property are not subject to a 'vote'. - They never have been.
They are self-evident and inalienable.
Learn to live with the founding principes of our republic.

[ninenot]

Those cultural norms were also moral norms. There IS no compelling interest for the Supremes to overturn extant moral norms, except in the fevered minds of the 6.

[NeoCaveman]

Should the SCOTUS void a states anti-nose picking law, hypothetically?
Yes. The only legit function of government is protection of individual Rights.

I can't agree. Why have states if the Federal Supreme Court can go around invalidating silly laws? I fear federalism is dead.