Best Supreme Court ruling (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 09:22:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Best Supreme Court ruling (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Best Supreme Court ruling  (Read 5449 times)
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

« on: January 03, 2005, 11:52:48 AM »

Furman v. Georgia was by far the most intellectual riveting of the Supreme Court opinions to date. The exchange of ideas is simply amazing, even if some Justices were totally wrong in coming to their conclusions. Whether you agree with the Court or the individuals, this was by far the Supreme Court's finest hour.


Have you actually read this excuse for a judicial opinion?

Read my thoughts on this calamity in this thread.

I've got plenty more reasons to say why it was total garbage if you like as well.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2005, 01:10:50 PM »

I don't see why so many people llove Lawrence vs. Texas. While I don't like sodomy laws, I oppose federalizing it. It's just one more axing on states' rights.

I don't support states' rights over people's individual right to have privacy in their own bedroom and their right to engage in whatever non-commercial, consensual sexual activity (between adults) that they wish to. The state has no power to enter the bedroom under these circumstances, period, and the federal government simply recognised this.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2005, 01:18:18 PM »

The federal government has no power to decide that States can't regulate non-commercial, consensual sexual activity between adults.

The inherent right of privacy found in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, along with the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments says that the States can't do what Texas tried to do in this case. The federal government simply reminded them of this fact.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2005, 01:19:35 PM »

What the judges are basically doing in overturning such laws is engaging in civil disobediance.

You're not drunk and/or high are you?

I ask because what you are saying is total bollocks. The Judges in this case were simply upholding the Constitution, there is nothing civilly disobedient about that.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 10 queries.