Replies

Uh, I just skimmed it and Scalia talks about anti-miscegenation laws.

He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process.

Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed.

Man, this guy loves the State.

He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process. Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed. Man, this guy loves the State.

Skywalk, you got it. Thanks!

He also seems to make the argument that if a bunch of politicans get together and make a law that deprives you of liberty(in this case sodomy) that this does not violate due process.

Constitutionally, his argument is sound. The determination about the sodomy law is, properly speaking, not for the federal government to make or to impose. As with abortion, it is one that is properly determined in the legislatures and courts of the respective states. That typically means that some states will decide one way and some the other. To date, Texas' legislature has stood by the existing law and its courts have upheld it. That is not so in some other states, as is their respective right to determine. But by ruling as the court did in this case, they assumed the power of determining that particular policy into the federal government. For that reason, if nothing else, the ruling is an atrocity.

Man, this guy loves the State.

For opposing the assumption of another power by the federal government? Your reasoning is bizarre.

Homosexuality is not liberty it is bondage.

Further, the widespread practice of sodomy deprives an entire nation of rights by the leavening effect of such perversion on all of society and by ensuring the righteous judgment of God falling upon that nation.

You don't need to explain due process to Scalia. You need to shut up and listen to a man with more schloarship and common sense in his smallest digit than you have in your entire skull.

"...Man, this guy loves the State...."

Sky: You're almost half right. Your statement would correctly read, "Man, this guy loves the states."

Justice Scalia shows in his opinion an appropriate respect for the right of people, as expressed by the actions of their state legislatures, to pass laws that constrain human behavior. In this case the human behavior that is constrained is homosexual sodomy. But it could as well have been murder, rape, prostitution or drug possession.

You may believe that one should be at liberty to engage in any or all of these things. I might agree with you on some. But the fact is that the people of Texas disagree with you and the Consititution gives them the clear right to do so, even when they impringe on an individual's pursuit of his pleasure.

You correctly see sodomy laws as a deprivation of liberty. Scalia agrees with you. What you fail to understand is that all laws are in effect a deprivation of liberty. On this point, the Bill of Rights says that no state shall deprive men of liberty without due process. None on the majority even accuses the State of Texas of failing to provide due process to criminals prosecuted under these laws. They simply don't like the law, so they held against it: the definition of arbitrary and capricious.

As Scalia states in his dissent, he has nothing against homosexuals. His position is based on legal and Constitutional principles. He is concerned that when the court disregards legal and Constitutional principles it will lose it moorings and act as a dictatorship of elite opinion that will deprive the people of their democratic right of self governance. Clearly, we are not far from there.

The one positive thing that has emerged from this fiasco is that it has cast asunder any pretention that the Supreme Court is obligated to give extreme deference to past court rulings when considering new cases (Stare Decisis). The only thing that matters is the collective opinion of the nine people who happen to be sitting on the court at a given time. If God is willing, this means that the legal travesty known as Roe v. Wade is not long to stand.

Antonin, buddy, pal, due process is applied to an individual for a discrete event(prison time for crime, eminent domain, etc) NOT for permanent deprivation of liberty for an entire class of persons until the law is repealed.

It's about time someone said that.

Man, this guy loves the State.

Yes, he sure does. Its hard to see why people champion him as the pinnacle of conservatism.