Major Supreme Court Decision

[HDPM]

Texas sodomy law struck down. I have no read the whole opinion yet, but I will today as it may affect my state's "infamous crime against nature." I think this is a big step to a free society. Try this link if you want to wade thru 50 pages of blather. web page (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf)

[Jimbo]

HDPM,

How will this ruling effect all the poor innocent sheep in Montana?

[ripdog]

How dare you take this unprovoked shot at Ray Zee! I'm sure Ray will tell you that those sheep were all sluts and were constantly throwing themselves at him. That said, it's still ok for him to sodomize sheep, right HDPM?

[HDPM]

The opinion does nothing to protect sheep. As to what it means, well, here's a far-reaching quote from the opinion:

"Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[J.A.Sucker]

"Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds." Where, China? Hell, in the US under the Patriot Act?

Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." So says our government... sometimes... when it's politically convenient...

Lol. Thanks for making my day a little brighter.

[Pot-A]

I heard about that. I'm not all that happy about it, since this particular law should have been removed by the Texas legislature long ago. Or didn't it matter, in practice, since they haven't enforced it in living memory?

If you read Souter's opinion he remarks how he's troubled by the court's intrusion into areas previously regarded as the purview of the state legislatures. If this line of reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion, it could be used to void statutes against any consentual sex: prostitution, for example, or incest.

I don't see any reason the court would follow the reasoning too far, but I'm troubled by the court's willingness to construct a logical argument and then ignore it in a later ruling. And I don't like the idea that the supreme court is becoming the de facto legislature in this country.

[HDPM]

Well, they enforced it on the two guys in this case.

Typically sodomy laws are only used in oddball non-consensual situations anymore, but the fact they can be used against people engaging in consensual sex is bad.

[Ray Zee]

the sad part wasnt the vote like 6-3 or something. how could any of them consider upholding any such law.

[andyfox]

"I don't like the idea that the supreme court is becoming the de facto legislature in this country."

This is precisely the argument of conservative John T. Noonan, Jr., in Narrowing the Nation's Power, in which Noonan argues, convincingly I believe, that the Supreme Court has usurped Congress and become an advocate for state's rights.

[Zeno]

I am sort of out my element here but can it be augured that the Supreme Court is more intent on limiting Federal Power, thus de facto upholding or stopping the erosion of states rights? This also brings up the "hidden fact" that by doing the above the court is in fact increasing their own power - and in a way that usurps the constitution. That may not apply to this specific case but in a general way is this trend occurring?

I would like to here the opinions of the more, shall I say, Eminent Members of the Bar, on this subject. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif


-Zeno

[adios]

"that the Supreme Court has usurped Congress and become an advocate for state's rights. "

Interesting since Federal authority vs. State authority is clearly a constitutional issue. One where cases pertaining to it will find it's way a fair amount to the Supreme Court. Ammendment 10 IMO indicates that there's a dividing line:

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Since I haven't read the book and you're kind enough to cite it I should read it before commenting on it specifically. But in general it would seem that "being an advocate for state's rights" would simply be the prevailing views of the Supreme Court and how they interpret the constitition. I'm not sure if this is what is meant by usurping Congress but being an "advocate for states rights" is kind of the Supreme Courts job.

[Utah]

The sad part is that 6 judges could actually vote to strike down the law because they had zero constitutional basis for doing so.

It is critical to understand the simple role of the supreme court - They decide the constitutionality of laws.

This issue to the supreme court isnt about homosexuality, its only about the constitutionality of a particular law. One cannot take a law and reject it because they they simply don't like it (as the 6 judges seemed to have done here). There needs to be legal justification. The "like or dont like part" belongs in the legislature"

The 3 dissenting judges simply said there was no constitutional basis for rejecting the law. They made no legal comment on homosexuality.

Justice Thomas said it best, (to paraphrase) "While I think the law is silly and if I were a Texas legislature I would vote against the law, I see nowhere in the constitution a right to privacy."

The majority seems to be exercising judicial activism - which I think is a terrible thing. I thought they would have struck down the law from an equal protection standpoint - which I think would have made sense. However, they instead seemed to have invented a right, privacy, that is not in the constitution.

[Ray Zee]

doesnt that law go against some of our fundamental rights.
plus some oversite of laws is important as entities use them for other purposes than they were intended for. thats the bad part. that has happened with rico for instance. but it is really abused by religous factions when they have laws drafted for their distorted views. just like this one.

[Utah]

"doesnt that law go against some of our fundamental rights?"

That is really the crux of the matter isn't it. The question then becomes one of defining the right in question and determining its validity.

You need a basis to determine the validity - which is of course the constitution. Supreme Court judges shouldn't go around willy nilly supporting or striking down laws that they favor or disfavor without a constitutional backing.

"but it is really abused by religous factions when they have laws drafted for their distorted views. just like this one. "

So? I have no doubt that the law in question was put in place by the religious right, whom I personally can't stand, to stop homosexuality. People and interest groups get laws enacted all the time that favor certain groups. There is nothing wrong with that as long as its constitutional. Funny - When they go for you, they are principled laws. When they go against you, they are abuse.

If it is constitutional - then you are hosed and you only have two proper recources: 1)Get the law changed through the legistation or 2)Get a constitutional amendment. Fixing through judicial acitivism is just too dangerous - I like to think of it as penny wise and pound foolish.

It is a very dangerous slippery slope to have judges change laws because that don't like them and it strikes against our entire form of government and our notion of balance of power. Don't let the end justify the means. You might be happy with the practical outcome of the decision (I am) but you should be very scared in the manner in which it was derived.

To think how scary -What if the Republicans gain another seat and start (or continue) to uphold/strikedown laws based on personnal beliefs and independant of the constitution. Just look at the 2000 election. I bet the liberals who are praising the Texas decision now were screaming bloody murder that the conservatives in 2000 didn't adhere strictly to the constitution.

You need to the constitution to provide the framework and stability of law, even if you hate some of the ramifications.

[Ray Zee]

utah, you are right of course in taht sese. but if they can enact laws that favor certain groups, a higher up authority needs to be there to sift out the bad ones. i like states rights but not for things that can be easily bought by people with connections to politics.

but i guess you are saying that what a person does in their home is not protected by the constitution.

it is more scary to allow small time venues to set laws that can drmatically affect your life, without you having much recourse. if your only chance is to have it deemed unconstitutional. i thionk personally i would rather have the supreme court change laws around rather than some local or state politician.

[adios]

"If this line of reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion, it could be used to void statutes against any consentual sex: prostitution, for example, or incest."

It seems to me that not voiding this statute would allow states to enact statutes to outlaw ANY consentual sex (not that it would happen). Why couldn't there be a law against the missionary position too? I'm amazed that it's become a "battleground" for states rights.