TheAgitator.com
Quick Supreme Court Thoughts
Thursday, June 26th, 20031) Any time you have to include the line “I don’t have anything against homosexuals” in your dissent, I’m thinking that’s a pretty good indication that you do in fact have something against homosexuals.
2) Ramesh Ponnuru outlines at least one good point in Scalia’s dissent — the inconsistency regarding stare decisis employed by the majority in Lawrence as opposed to Casey.
3) The Court ducked the important Nike free speech case. That means Nike can be sued for defending itself against sweatshop accusations. Inexcusable.
So, unless I are one (a homosexual), aspire to be one, or used to be one, I’m a homophobe, eh?
Great. A one-size-fits-all thought by someone who probably prides himself for his diversity, his compassion, and his tolerance. I should expect nothing less, I suppose.
No, pal, I just don’t want it in my face, don’t particularly want my kid to be one, and don’t want to be told it’s the next best thing to ice cream.
And no, I don’t even want to be told it’s normal. But, between you and me? There are things I do in the bedroom (and even the barn) that might not be considered normal. I just don’t wear it on my sleeve.
So, in your infinite wisdom, you feel free to think I’ve got something against homosexuals. Hey, guess what pal? I’ve got some things against heterosexuals, too.
They do seem to whine a bit less, though.
Tell you what – I’ll not include the line “I don’t have anything against homosexuals” in my dissents from now on – you can just assume it are there any time I open my pie hole. And that goes for anyone you ever hear from – save for the occasional serious flamer that happens by and is often seen on the end of a dog leash being led around by the other guy that doesn’t feel that way about homosexuals.
There – that’s two of them that don’t have anything against homosexuals.
As to your quick thoughts – maybe you should slow down.
“I’ve got some things against heterosexuals, too.
They do seem to whine a bit less, though.”
I would be whining too if i was jailed for having consensual sex in my own bedroom.
Ignore the top post, I prematurely sent it.
The actual quote goes like this:
“Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.”
So whether or not he has anything against homosexuals is not the issue of the statement. It’s that he does not have anything against anyone promoting their agenda.
MAUREEN DOWD ALERT! MAUREEN DOWD ALERT! I am right now reading Scalia’s dissent and you pulled a motherfricking Maureen Dowd. I hate it when people do that.
You said that Scalia said “I don’t have anything against homosexuals.”
That’s not in any way accurate. His dissent (in my initial reading) seems to question the activism of the court and worries that this decision will lead to anti-discrimination laws that require people to board and do business with homosexuals (something all libertarians should reject).
His quote? “Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.” What he does say he has a problem with is the court “taking sides” and taking an activist role in promoting the radical homosexual agenda.
It seems to me that both Scalia and Thomas cast aspersions at the Texas law. They just see a more limited role for the court than O’Connor, et. al. do.
Even if you actually quoted the source correctly (which you did not), the sentence “I have nothing against homosexuals” does mean “I do have something against homosexuals.” One is the logical negation of the other.
Stop with the dogma and the quoting out of context. You are making the rest of us libertarians look bad.
Anyway, what Scalia does or does not have against homosexuals is the least of the problems with his dissent. I’ll admit that Scalia is a brilliant satirist of, at times, near-Menckenian sharpness; I’ll even admit that the majority’s decision is mostly based on dumb penumbra-of-privacy grounds, instead of the Ninth Amendment grounds it should have been based on. But his opinion in this case is really, really weak.
He spends pages and pages whining irrelevantly about Roe v. Wade. He rants repeatedly about how he thinks homosexual sodomy is not, in itself, a fundamental right, while completely failing to address the court’s finding that homosexual conduct is constitutionally protected as a *special case* of the more general fundamental right of personal bodily privacy.
He cites a list of extremely bad lower court decisions based on the premise that the morality of the democratic majority constitutes, in itself, a rational basis for government action. Again, he spends lots of energy willfully missing the point at issue, which is whether there are general individual rights– like personal privacy– that the Constitution protects *against* the morality of the majority.
He then goes into slippery-slope arguments about all the other laws that could be struck down based on this precedent. About half of his examples are obvious nonsense, since the conduct they prohibit involves actual harm or breach of contract rather than mere offense to morality. The other half are things which really *should* be struck down on the same principle as anti-sodomy laws: obscenity laws, drug laws, refusal to recognize gay marriage, etc. He gets very exercised over the court’s hypocrisy in not wanting to strike these things down too, and doesn’t seem to understand the difference between arguing that someone is hypocritical and arguing that they’re wrong.
Overall, his governing legal principle appears to be that if a majority really, really wants a law to be in effect, and continues to want it for a sufficiently long time to make it “traditional”, then the law must be constitutional, regardless of the rationality of the majority opinion or the effect on individual liberty. No doubt, had he lived in 1850 or so, he would have vociferously defended slavery on the same grounds.
First and foremost, due to religious beliefs I DO NOT agree with the gay lifestyle, however, being the U.S.A. I know I can not constitutionally force my beliefs onto another person. And as far as I know the laws of nature do not forbid it(gayness),ie. hasn’t anyone here or their friends ever seen a male dog going after another male dog? And this doesn’t just stop with dogs, it happens in cows,deer,etc. and the list goes on and on. My problem is this, if you are going to have anti-sodomy laws, they should be across the board, not just for homosexuals. This is where the Supreme Court comes in. The Supreme Court was put in partially to make sure the laws enacted by the legistlative branch coincided with the constitution. It is for this reason that I dismiss Scalia’s dissent saying he doesn’t have anything against homos, just the policy of making/changeing laws from the bench. If this would have been challenging sodomy period (I still don’t think it’s the gov’t business) there would not be any discrimination, but the fact that it was sodomy in homos, well to me that puts the gov’t into the business of discrimination. And I don’t believe that is a power we want to give to politicians.
Something I find amusing about all of this. As I sit at work(newspaper) and read the AP wire coming in for reactions from OK,TX,KS, etc. A resounding arguement that people(representatives) from those states are making is that a STATE ought to be able to make or repeal laws its constituents feel strongly about. I wonder how all the medical marijuana prisoners who have been using reefer under their states laws feel. Where were all these politicians when med. pot states were and are still getting harrassed by the gov’t. If it ought to be a states right to make or repeal any of its laws a population wants???? A little hypocrisy I see……
Judicial Activism
Today the U.S. Supreme Court diminished states rights even further with its 6-3 vote in favor of Lawrence, in Lawrence v. Texas. I believe, as most people that the sodomy law that Texas still had on its books was a…
I wonder if all the people who don’t want homosexuality “shoved into their face” would object to a total ban on any sort of public display of affection. No kissing. No hugging. Not even holding hands. For anyone, anywhere. Because all those straight people are shoving their sexuality into other people’s faces. It’s terrible. Why can’t they just keep it in the bedroom and not remind people wherever they go that they’re having straight sex somewhere? Isn’t it outrageous? Every time men talk and talk about their girlfriends, and women keep photos of their boyfriends at their desks at work, it’s objectionable and we shouldn’t have to see it. It should just be kept in private where we can forget it exists.
Sheesh.
And don’t blame Radley too much for the error; he probably got it from the myriad of news sources who did that misquote. Not that the attitudes expressed in it aren’t probably pretty close to what Scalia actually feels, but it’s a shame that it had to detract from the real issues…
>And don’t blame Radley too much for the error; he probably got it from the myriad of news sources who did that misquote. Not that the attitudes expressed in it aren’t probably pretty close to what Scalia actually feels, but it’s a shame that it had to detract from the real issues…>
You are probably right. But I think Radley and everyone else here has been around long enough to realize that you shouldn’t believe what you read on the net unless you can find something that backs it up. Ironically, the link that was put up by him was the evidence that proved him wrong because it was a link to the actually decision. Which means, he probably didn’t actually read the decision.
Lawrence v. Texas bloglinks…
More bloglinks on the Lawrence v.
viagra
viagra online
cialis