Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^ | 6/27/03 | Deal Hudson

[toothless]

Shouldn't you be out licking some jackboots?

[cherrycapital]

Do you think requiring equal sentences for homosexual and heterosexual offenses is a bad outcome?

[Arkinsaw]

I have no problem with having unelected people in black robes legislate as long as they are protecting individual freedom from the state.

It is not their duty to legislate either for our own good or for tyranny. They are not put there to legislate, only the legislative branch has that power.

I am surprised that someone here has no problem with a branch of government taking on the powers of another branch as long as its for our own good. Thats a very liberal philosophy.

I am a strong advocate of individual liberty, almost to the point of libertarianism sometimes. But I am also a strong advocate of division of power and checks and balances. I'm not for "outcome based" government.

[ijcr]

One of Thomas Jefferson's warnings about
government taking away our rights went as follows:

". . . the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body,
working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a
little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing
its motionless steps like a thief, over the field of
jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States,
and the government of all be controlled into one."

Because of our own prejudiced views, we did not listen.

[Kevin Curry]

You're picking a very shaky example to make your point.

LOL! A warning about "shaky examples" from a defender of the jury-rigged Lawrence decision.

[cherrycapital]

But to say that private sexual transactions between consenting adults may be criminalized, is to ignore the 9th Amendment and give it no effect whatsoever.

[tdadams]

A warning about "shaky examples" from a defender of the jury-rigged Lawrence decision.

Are you still ranting about the Gore case?

[aristeides]

You're picking a very shaky example to make your point.

It just happens to be the first use the Supreme Court has made of its Lawrence decision, the day after Kennedy said in Lawrence that that decision was just about criminal laws against sex between consenting adults, and did not concern sex with minors or prostitution or gay marriage.

[dogbyte12]

Let me be very clear for you and everybody else here. I am including all factors here. In Kansas, with a prior as a juvenile, and as an 18 year old man, you are sentenced to 15 months in prison for having sex with a 14 year old girl. With a prior as a juvenile, and as an 18 year old man, you are sentenced to 17 years in jail for having sex with a 14 year old boy.

Let there be no confusion here. The supreme court said the punishment must be the same. They in no way argued about the length a state can impose, only that the punishment must be equal.

[aristeides]

Do you think requiring equal sentences for homosexual and heterosexual offenses is a bad outcome?

You're very outcome-oriented, aren't you? I think decreeing that it is constitutionally required is a bad outcome.

[bart99]

No one responded earlier, so I'll try again.

Does this ruling in effect make prostitution (among adults) legal?

[cherrycapital]

As has been pointed out, the issue in Limon wasn't the legality of statutory rape laws, but the legality of egregious discrimination against homosexual offenders v. heterosexual offenders. What is it about the outcome in Limon that you find objectionable?

[TheDon]

Agreed. Roe is hard to top. Lawrence is more like a Roe Jr. or Dredd Scott Jr.

[tdadams]

I know the case and I don't disagree. What I disagree with is you being intellectually dishonest and omitting some very pertinent facts about that case. Very clearly you're not interested in furthering an honest discussion, you're interested in demogoguery.

[tahiti]

"However, I would've reached the same result (upholding a right to privacy) as one of the 9th Amendment's unenumerated rights (this was Justice Goldberg's position in Griswold v. Connecticut"

You are exactly correct.

It is very gratifying to me that there is at least one other "Freeper" who understands and appreciates the 9th amendment.

I am sure that I post at least once a week a reference to the 9th amendment as our ultimate defense against the federal tyranny of the misapplied commerce clause and tyranny of those who believe in majority rule.

If you have in fact read Justice Goldberg's concurring opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, it is my opinion that Justice Goldberg began to scare himself with the real implication and power of the individual liberty residing and emanating from the implication of the 9th amendment and if applied correctly, the 9th amendment could begin to dismantle the entire federal regulatory system, such as, for example, using the 9th amendment as the constitutional basis for overturning laws enacted by the federal Congress forcing the states to enact seat belt laws to retain federal highway money, when he stated,

"I do not mean to imply that the Ninth Amendment is applied against the States by the Fourteenth. Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive."

Justice Goldberg diminishes the power of the 9th amendment by using the phrase "...fundamental rights exist..."

What the hell are "fundamental rights?" More litigation, more fighting and arguing to try and determine that definition.

Similar to "compelling state interest."

[cherrycapital]

It is constitutionally require under the equal protection clause. That isn't even a substantive due process issue; I think the Limon decision would've been the same even without Lawrence, since only O'Connor hinged Lawrence on the equal protection argument.

[aristeides]

That may be what the Supreme Court's action in Limon yesterday implied, but they certainly did not come out and say it. Quote me the words.

And that does nothing to alter the fact that yesterday, the day after Kennedy said in Lawrence that that case had nothing to do with sex with minors, the Supreme Court implied a good deal more clearly that Lawrence affects the outcome of cases involving sex with minors. (Something Kennedy and the other members of the majority must have known when he was writing his Lawrence opinion.)

[Van Jenerette]

Social rules and criminal laws are not the same thing.

This entirely correct! The problem now is that many people make the assumption that if something is NOT CRIMINAL then it is NOT IMMORAL and therefore should become LEGAL and by natural extension becomes MORAL.

This is a classic case of flawed logic that is used too often.

At the end of the day - most of ours laws are based on a MORAL vrs. IMMORAL code that is rooted in religious beliefs. If laws and rights are not based in a large part on religion - which results in an unquestionable legitimacy, all laws and rights would flow from only the opinion of only the most powerful.

[tdadams]

It is very gratifying to me that there is at least one other "Freeper" who understands and appreciates the 9th amendment.

There are many, but sadly, not nearly enough.

[PMCarey]

Yesterday, in Limon, the Supreme Court vacated the sentence of someone who had homosexually molested a 14-year-old boy, on the basis of Lawrence.

Not exactly true. The court reduced the sentence since the penalty for homosexual sex with a minor was stricter than heterosexual sex with a minor. The ACLU was arguing that the penalty for both actions must be the same.