Lawrence v. Texas

My position is doggystyle, with the opposite sex of course.

 

Freedom.

This law is stupid and should be tossed. I hope the Supreme Court rights this wrong.

 

That law is an embarrassment. It originally applied to everyone, but the heterosexual portion was decriminalized in 1974. I would have thought this law (the part that singles out gays) would have been “put in the books” somewhere back in the dark ages…..not in 1974…..after the free-love 60’s and when I was already 7 years old.

The law shouldn't be there in the first place, but yes....it should be repealed.

 

I don't agree with the law, but I don't know about the courts overturning it. The legislature should change the law.

 

yeah you like being tossed dont you.

 

As long as you use jelly....

 

The problem with the word, "sodomy", is that when you see it, you always think of 2 people of the same sex performing it, hardly ever 2 people of the opposite sex performing anal or oral sex.

Guess part of it is due to the fact that the word is derived from "Sodom" which in itself has negative connotations towards homosexuals.

 

Dude, I think you meant Ranch didn't ya...

Anyway, it's seems pretty wierd to have such a law when people are in there own home...

There's gotta be much more crap the legislators and cops could be focusing on...

 

Checks and balances. If the legislature passes or (in this case) fails to change a discriminatory law, then the courts step in and rights the wrong. It's not like this is a new law exactly - the legislature should have repealed it a long time ago. But they didn't and the Texas court dropped the ball.

 

As a staunch Republican no one here should be surprised to learn that I am TOTALLY EMBARRASSED BY THIS LAW. How stupid. If people want to have butt sex all night long in the privacy of their studio loft then that is fine with me. It's a stupid homophobic law and supporters of it wear their hateful intolerance on their sleeves.

 

It's not like Texas is the only state with sodomy laws. In some states, sodomy is illegal regardless of sexual orientation. There are probably more messed up laws across the country, but police usually ignore them. If the SC declares the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional then all sodomy laws need to be repealed.

 

This isn't really a case where checks and balances applies. The legislature made the law, it's not unconstitutional. The courts can't just come in and overturn everything they think is wrong.

 

All consensual crimes are unconstitutional IMO and should be repealed. However, if the legislature isn't going to do anything about them, then by God I hope the courts do.

 

I'm pretty sure that's a rare interpration of the constitution. If the courts can overturn any law they feel like, how do you know that in the future they won't overturn laws you like just because they feel like it?

 

I'm not suggesting they overturn any law they feel like. But it is within their power to overturn laws they deem unconstitutional (which I believe a law like this to be).

 

Was Brown v. Board of Education a mistake?

So far Scalia and Rehnquest have come out in support of the law while Breyer and Souter are against it.

It's going to be a close vote. 5-4 with Kennedy probably the deciding vote. The court will rule by the end of June.

 

Actually, it's the court's decision to determine constitutionality, not the legislature's. So if the court interprets the law as unconstitutional, then they can overturn it. Their responsibility as judges is to explain the reason they feel this is unconstitutional.

If the legislature disagrees with the courts, they can amend the constitution (as long as the amendment doesn't clash with the parts of the constitution that remain in effect).

Checks and balances at its most basic

 

So...

The SC can strike down a law passed by Congress/State.

Congress can pass an amendment that the SC can't touch, right?

 

As long as the amendment jives with the unchanged parts of the Constitution, this is correct.