Scalia: What a massive disruption of the social order this ruling entails.

US Supreme Court ^ | June 26, 2003 | nwrep

[TLBSHOW]

BUSH WILL BE HELD TO THE FIRE BUT GOOD ON THIS ONE...

........

We must hold President George W. Bush to his pledge to appoint men like Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. And we must accept nothing less.


,,,,,,,,,
For them, the ends justify the means. Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Guerriero—a so-called Republican who claims to revere the U.S. Constitution—admitted as such in a memorable exchange with Pat Buchanan on MSNBC’s Buchanan & Press:

GUERRIERO: …We support an overturning of the remainder of sodomy laws across the country...

BUCHANAN: [Via] judicial fiat?

GUERRIERO: I don’t care how.

All of the gay activists thrilled over the Court’s action in Lawrence v. Texas have contributed to the erosion of this republic’s founding principles. The U.S. Supreme Court has disgraced itself by ignoring the Tenth Amendment and going along with the gay lobby. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, articulated this sentiment well:

“The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda… The court has taken sides in the culture war.”

Indeed it has. And we conservatives must reverse this. How? We must hold President George W. Bush to his pledge to appoint men like Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. And we must accept nothing less.

BY Joseph J. Sabia


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936264/posts?page=

[cookcounty]

"Didn't it take a Constitutional AMENDMENT to bring about the Prohibition?"

Nope. It took a Constitiutiional amendment to make Prohibition the NATIONAL law of the land. There were plenty of dry towns and dry counties and even dry states BEFORE "Prohibition," and those "dry laws" were NOT found unconstitutional (nor are they now).

[Skywalk]

In essence, the Constitution was to limit the power of not only the federal governments but ALL governments.

If a state oversteps its bounds, it is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule that such a law is unconstitutional.

You know, lots of blacks have a great fear of "state's rights" because it became a euphemism for unlawful forced segregation even of state institutions(and unlawful forced segregation upon PRIVATE institutions, as well.)

If we defend a state's rights to oppress citizens or make ridiculous laws that would render the majority of its citizens criminals, then we will lose credibility on the real issues.

[Skywalk]

You're right.

ANd Dred SCott was nothing but property to, according to a Supreme Court of the 1800s.

What is SHOCKING is that this very Supreme Court issued a decision that was far more important but is getting far less attention.

Also shocking is the fact that this very Supreme Court has ruled time and time again in FAVOR of expanded police powers.

WHERES THE OUTCRY FOR THAT?

Just because someone decided at one point that something was "constitutional" does not make it correct. Heck, even the Founders were unconstitutional from time to time. The issue is to be CONSISTENT, not slavishly worship one man or group of men or one institution.

[Skywalk]

Maybe watching people get arrested for consensual crimes arouses your fascist impulses, but some of us believe such laws to be ridiculous and against the very spirit of liberty.

[GregoryFul]

How are you DIRECTLY negatively impacted by two men having sex?

Two men having sex (and hetrosexual anal sex) spreads disease. Since medical problems, and their costs have been socialized, it affects me directly in the pocketbook.

Prostitution should remain illegal for similar reasons - it causes societal and medical problems.

But this ruling can easily be used to cover "comercial" sex - why not?

[jrushing]

Maybe watching people get arrested for consensual crimes
Maybe you didn't read your words. "Consensual crimes" implies crime. Some people should be arrested for crime. Or Do you think that crime shouldn't be punished?

[Revel]

I heard on the radio the fact that the US has always recognized Canadian marriage licences. So the question remains what
happens when two homosexual Candians get married and move to the US? At this time it would seem that the US would have
to treat them as married. This will create havoc and unless states add laws protecting from this(X50+) then it will just be a fact
of life. But then if the states do so then what will the SC say? It is a real mess comming very soon.

[Skywalk]

Perhaps the crime of helping escaped slaves should be punished too?

And perhaps beating your slave or your child isn't a crime?

You are a legalist and not a defender of freedom. By your standards, anything that gets passed(except of course any law against owning guns..or maybe u're for those too) is law and moral.

Good thing brave men disagreed with you.

Remember the Stamp Act?

[Skywalk]

I'm willing to bet that non-commercial sex between men and women spreads far more disease than prostitution or gay sex.

In fact, I'd guarantee it.
Also, in localities with legal prostitution(provided there are basic health checks) the disease rate is almost nil. Contrast that with runaway disease rates in places where prostitution is illegal.

Did you know that prostitution was even legal in Singapore, that authoritarian paradise?

BTW, what you are essentially doing is deciding that because a person MIGHT be involved in a societally detrimental result, they are essentially guilty of it prior to commission.

Guess you feel the same way about guns too eh?

[GOPcapitalist]

In essence, the Constitution was to limit the power of not only the federal governments but ALL governments.

That it was, but to use it to implement restrictions upon lower level governments through the adoption of policy at the national level achieves limitation only by the exercise of power elsewhere. Clarence Thomas said it best - the Texas law itself was inane and "silly," but it was not the right of the federal government to exercise a greater power of its own to determine policy for the state of Texas.

If a state oversteps its bounds, it is in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to rule that such a law is unconstitutional.

Actually, as originally intended by the founders, Supreme Court jurisdiction to infringe upon the states was extremely limited and belonged only to matters where their jurisdictions crossed or came into dispute. Even the pro-national government federalist John Marshall upheld that belief in some of his rulings.

You know, lots of blacks have a great fear of "state's rights" because it became a euphemism for unlawful forced segregation even of state institutions(and unlawful forced segregation upon PRIVATE institutions, as well.)

Aside from that statement's complete irrelevance to the constitutional issue of the sodomy law, history tells us that absolutely no necessary connection ties the concept of states rights to segregation. Where they two crossed was experientially so only for a now-concluded period of history.

As for the relationship between states rights and race among the founding fathers, several of the doctrine's leading advocates were also anti-slavery. Luther Martin, the recognized leader of the states righters at the Constitutional Convention, refused to support the document largely because it made no plan to abolish slavery. Richard Henry Lee of Declaration of Independence fame, a leading states righter and anti-federalist, had previously championed anti-slave trade legislation in the Virginia legislature. St. George Tucker, a states righter from the Annapolis Convention and well regarded legal commentator on the Constitution, also penned a proposal to abolish slavery.

[Skywalk]

That's why I made my point. I'm FOR state's rights. I am NOT for the unlimited right of a state to make laws contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. PERIOD.

The segregation argument was merely an example of unconstitutional behavior by a state under the cover of "state's rights." When we support such ideas, we lose credibility on REAL state's rights, anti-centralization issues.

[Skywalk]

That's why I made my point. I'm FOR state's rights. I am NOT for the unlimited right of a state to make laws contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. PERIOD.

The segregation argument was merely an example of unconstitutional behavior by a state under the cover of "state's rights." When we support such ideas, we lose credibility on REAL state's rights, anti-centralization issues.

[jrushing]

You are a legalist and not a defender of freedom. By your standards, anything that gets passed(except of course any law against owning guns..or maybe u're for those too) is law and moral.
Perhaps you are a moral relativist & think that no crime is wrong?
Freedom doesn't grant the freedom to harm others with no reproach.

[jrushing]

And perhaps beating your slave or your child isn't a crime?
Oh, also, I didn't have any slaves & I didn't beat my children, sicko.

[cookcounty]

"Did you know that prostitution was even legal in Singapore, that authoritarian paradise?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "was," but it was definitely absolutely illegal when I was there in 2000.

[Skywalk]

How are you harmed in a transaction of sex for money?

and are you similarly harmed(please quantify or qualify harm to YOU) by the act of an old rich man marrying a nubile young gold-digger?

[fifteendogs]

True, but the USSC today has told us that no state has the right to pass laws that are based on morals.

[Skywalk]

I didn't mean YOU, specifically.

I thought that was a given.

[Humidston]

Welcome. And join the club. I share your anger.