Lawrence v. Texas

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Definately right. It forced the idiots running certain states that kept absolutely idiotic and horrifically invasive laws to finally lift that mindless crap.

[A18]

We already had this topic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I did a search and couldn't find it.

[A18]

Bowers, then.

Sodomy was considered a heinous crime under common law. Blackstone described the offense itself as one of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named."

The English common law provided the basis for early state sodomy laws, and at the time of the Revolution, most states punished sodomy by death.

[Emsworth]

Notwithstanding opebo's protests, there is neither any such thing as a constitutional right to privacy, nor any such thing as substantive due process. There was no basis for this unsound decision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Notwithstanding opebo's protests, there is neither any such thing as a constitutional right to privacy, nor any such thing as substantive due process. There was no basis for this unsound decision.

Why do you even pretend to be socially liberal?

[Emsworth]

Why do you even pretend to be socially liberal?

What do my social views have to do with constitutional interpretation? Obviously, the Texas law was tyrannical and oppressive. But it is not unconstitutional.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why do you even pretend to be socially liberal?

What do my social views have to do with constitutional interpretation? Obviously, the Texas law was tyrannical and oppressive. But it is not unconstitutional.

So you don't seem to believe in the federal 9th amendment?

[Emsworth]

So you don't seem to believe in the federal 9th amendment?

The Ninth Amendment only applies to the federal government. This case deals with a state law.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you don't seem to believe in the federal 9th amendment?

The Ninth Amendment only applies to the federal government. This case deals with a state law.

Federal amendments supersede state laws, you fool.

[Emsworth]

Federal amendments supersede state laws, you fool.

Go read Barron v. Baltimore. It is quite obvious that the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It was an excellent decision and I am glad the judges had the courage to make it.

[Alcon]

It was a find decision, other than having nothing to do with the Constitution.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It was a find decision, other than having nothing to do with the Constitution.

I don't know why you have such a high expectation of judges to follow the Constitution, when you do not have a high expectation of legislators to follow their oaths of office.

[Emsworth]

I don't know why you have such a high expectation of judges to follow the Constitution...

So you admit that this decision had no basis in the Constitution, and was merely judicial activism?

[phk]

This isn't even about 'constitutionality' whether if it is 'right or 'wrong'.

[Alcon]

It was a find decision, other than having nothing to do with the Constitution.

I don't know why you have such a high expectation of judges to follow the Constitution, when you do not have a high expectation of legislators to follow their oaths of office.

What do you mean?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It was a find decision, other than having nothing to do with the Constitution.

I don't know why you have such a high expectation of judges to follow the Constitution, when you do not have a high expectation of legislators to follow their oaths of office.

What do you mean?

Legislators are supposed to do what is best for their all of their constituents, not just the ones that are popular.  If they fail to protect people's rights, then somebody has to step in and do their job for them.

[Emsworth]

Legislators are supposed to do what is best for their all of their constituents, not just the ones that are popular.  If they fail to protect people's rights, then somebody has to step in and do their job for them.

The judiciary does not have the authority to step in whenever they feel that the legislators are not doing their jobs. This destroys the concept of the separation of powers that underlies our system of government. If the Governor feels that the legislature isn't doing its job properly, should he start passing new laws? If the state legislature feels that the courts aren't doing their jobs properly, should it start issuing its own rulings?

[nini2287]

This isn't even about 'constitutionality' whether if it is 'right or 'wrong'.

The decision, in my opinion, is certainly 'right' from a 'moral' sense (if you believe such terms exist).  However, I feel that the integrity of the constitution supercedes almost any issue facing the nation at any point in time.  An activist ruling such as Griswold v. Connecticut that undoubtly does the 'right' thing for the country (with respect to contraception at least) but shows blantant disregard for the constitution sets a precedent for future Supreme Courts (whether 'liberal' or 'conservative') to sculpt the Constitution in any way they'd like to match their own ideologies.  For example, there would be nothing to stop a future court from legalizing the rape of small children under the so-called "right to privacy".

[The Duke]

I agree with O'Connor's concurrence.

[Sam Spade]

My feelings on this matter match Emsworth's.

[Jake]

Wrong and unconstitutional. But mostly just wrong.

[nini2287]

Wrong and unconstitutional. But mostly just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

[© tweed]

Federal amendments supersede state laws, you fool.

Go read Barron v. Baltimore. It is quite obvious that the Ninth Amendment does not apply to the states.

That was before the passage of the 14th amendment, which required states to give its citizens equal protection under the law.  Why wouldn't the 14th amendment apply the 9th to the states?  (legit question not rhetorical, you're smarter than I am)