I know he commented on the affirmative action case and supported it. Maybe someone just hasn't posted the quote.
I am not advocating an end to law enforcement. I am totally in favor of laws that help us moderate our society - traffic laws, rules for currency and economy, protection against violence, etc. What I am saying is that I do not believe in the inherent badness of human beings, but rather the opposite. Punishment for disobeying laws can be a deterrant, but we have one of the largest criminal justice systems in the world and still have one of the higest crime rates of the industrialized world. Obviously, if someone wants to commit a crime, they'll do it anyway. IMO, this is due largely to the fact that we live in a society rife with injustice, poverty, lack of education and a fairly pervasive belief that our value is derived from how much money and power we can acquire. I would never suggest we simply eliminate all laws. Actually, I agree that they are essential for this particular society. But I do not believe that is a reflection of the inherent evil of mankind. I actually see it as a reflection of the problems within our own society.
Here is what Fleischer had to say during their briefing yesterday: --------------- "Q And on the Texas sodomy case, does the President believe that gay men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home? MR. FLEISCHER: I think on this decision, the administration did not file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case. And this is now a state matter. Q So he has no position on this? MR. FLEISCHER: It's just as I indicated, the administration did not file a brief on this -- as, I think, you know. " --------------- Perhaps more is being said by not saying anything.
The validity of this criminal statute had no business being argued in front of the Supreme Court. It is likely that gay sex is not considered a crime by the majority of Texans today, so the state legislature should vote to repeal the law. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to consider the current changes in trends of belief and undermine state sovreignty every 15 years. Some of you claim to be scared by Scalia. I believe that the repercussions are much more ominous from the fact that a mere 9 individuals in our massive allegedly-democratic nation apparently now wield the power to overturn any law that is founded upon 'beliefs that have changed' since its inception while blatantly disregarding the structures of a federalist democratic government. The aftershocks of this federal intrusion could have potentially devestating effects on issues much more important than the alleged right for adults to engage in consensual gay sex, but with the ability of citizens to locally legislate themselves. But some "minority" groups are too blinded by their own selfish interests to see that.
i don't totally disagree with your logic...but where have you been for the past 80 years?? it's been that way since the New Deal courts. this is far from the first time where the courts have read the due process clause to the exclusion of the tenth amendment. and it certainly won't be the last. i have to say...on this one, i think they're right. no, the constitution does not enumerate a right to sodomy in one's own house...but it puts such burdens on the government to justify searches in criminal investigations that i think it can certainly be implied from the document. ultimately, the whole pursuit of life, liberty and property thing screws with this law... your line of reasoning...taken to its logical extreme...means that no state law EVER gets scrutiny under the constitution...i gotta tell you...you lost that one about 150 years ago.
But the thing is, the normal democratic process was already taking care of it. I believe only 13 states still had the law on the books. Why does the Supreme Court need to do a blanket overturning of a law when the legislatures are already overturning it? Clarence Thomas agreed with it, saying it was a silly law. Also, the basis on which they made the ruling, that there should be a zone of "privacy" isn't really based on the original reading of the Constitution. That is a more progressive reading, and could open the door to all types of things we aren't necesarily ready to accept, such as gay marriage. PS- I think O'Conner's opinion to overturn made sense- that it only target homosexuals and not heterosexuals.
This was not the Gestapo busting into bedrooms around the country and pulling Peaches and Simone from their beds. This archaic law was only left in place in 13 states, and for obvious reasons it was enforced virtually nowhere. The law was outdated and silly, as agreed by all. The Supreme Court's job, however, is not to decide which laws are silly; it is to unequivocally to protect the Constitution, and that includes above all other individual interests the notions of state sovreignty and democratic government. All these balancing tests and compelling interest tests have become semantical tools that allow the Court free reign to pick and choose which sexy issues they want to dabble in each term, and now there is virtually no limit on their reign. You can argue all day about 'privacy interests' and 'rational relations'. The point is that we are speeding away from a government where local people rule themselves and towards a government where a handful of old men rule the world. That is not what this country is all about.
Padgett, good points. And I also wonder why people are hailing this as a huge victory for gay rights. If these laws were only on the books in 13 states, and if those stats barely enforced them, then why is the victory so great? I think it's because they believe they can push through more of their ideas through the courts. Will gay marriage be a right granted by the courts soon?
You're absolutely right. With the parameters that the Supreme Court have set now, they can virtually institute any 'private' institution that they wish.
Agreed on all 3 points. Just to be clear, Justice Thomas dissented due to Constitutional reasons, but he is no fan of this law, nor does he share Justice Scalia's animus towards homosexuals: If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. Rosenthal's an ass. I known him since I was a kid. He repeatedly cheated on his wife, then divorced her & married some bimbo. He's not exactly high on my list of people who need to be lecturing me or anyone else on morality. Plus he got totally & completely embarassed during questioning by the Justices. From what I've read, he basically looked incompetent. There's been some good articles about it in the WaPo & elsewhere, just not in the Chronicle - suprise, suprise.
Wrong . . . wrong . . . wrong. All the Supreme Court can do is determine which laws are in step with the rights prescribed in the Constitution. The court has long ruled that the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendment grant people the right to privacy (for example, see Griswold v. Connecticut), and the Lawrence verdict is merely the long overdue application of that same right to homosexuals. If the representatives of the federal government feels that the court has ruled erroneously, then they can amend the Constitution to fit their wishes. Thus, if the people feel that this needs to be done, then they can elect representatives that would support such an amendment. Your view of Constitutional law is so outdated and wrong, it's almost comical. Mr. Clutch, Laws against gay marriage may soon be abolished unless the government can show a compelling reason why such unions pose a threat toward society. I'm not sure that the government can do that without referring to Biblical standards, which would probably be viewed as a violation of church and state. That's why I think the comparisons between homosexual behavior and other actions (for example, rape or incest) are ridiculous. Homosexual relations and marriage neither involve the infringement of another person's liberty (as in rape) nor pose a risk toward society (as incest would, because the potential offspring would be at a significantly greater risk for birth deformities).
1. The Supreme Court didn't decide the law was silly. They didn't reference the "silly" clause in the Constitution. The law was overturned on due process grounds. Plain and simple. And that's the right call. It's ultimately the S.Ct's job to determine if laws, be they state or federal, pass constitutional muster. That's what the due process clause is all about...due process was applied to the states with the 14th amendment YEARS ago. 2. 13 states still had a law similar...thus, this wasn't a Texas only decision. That's a huge factor in the court granting certiorari to hear the case to begin with. They pick "sexy" issues, because that's their job...they're supposed to pick the divisive issues...the ones where states are in disagreement...and the ones where they feel there is a federal question. When someone makes an argument on due process grounds and it has merit, it will be heard by the S.Ct. 3. People have been making the argument about 9 men ruling the world for about 150 years now. At least since the 14th Amendment. For the most part, criminal law is left to the states. I'm much more concerned with issues like mail fraud, that allow the federal government an in to an otherwise state matter, than I am the Supreme Court taking a case where 13 states still have similar laws on the books...and one in which they made a previous ruling in 1986 they feel needed to be overturned. I'm hoping you understand that states could absolutely justifiably hold on to these laws given the previous decision in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick)...that's what the court wanted to clean up. 4. Say whatever you will about the 10th amendment and what we're speeding to...laws that allow state authorities to arrest people for consensual sex among adults in their own homes is flat ass unconstitutional...it flies in the face of the due process clause and the very concept of a limited government. Without a compelling state interest, the government has no business messing with the sexual relations of adults. Wanna outlaw something that impedes on families?? Outlaw adultery...but outlawing sodomy, whether hetero or homosexual is ridiculous...and there's no justifiable state interest to be preserved.
Exactly. I believe homosexuality should be taught in the classroom as an existing behavior. And kids should be taught to treat homosexuals with respect just like anybody else, even though they may or may not agree with the lifestyle. But the gay right people are pushing to teach kids that homosexuality is something they should embrace as a viable alternative lifestyle. That, I think is imposing private morality on other people.
conservatives like me have been saying that for years...but the courts have read privacy rights into the constitution through the due process clause for years and years now. this is nothing new.
