Right to Privacy and Buggery

I'm surprised this topic has not been brought up yet. In Lawrence v. Texas, a majority of the Supreme Court has found in the Constitution a right for gays to have consensual sex.

This ruling was not the srprrise to me that it seemed to be to the media. I do however, find the Court's reasoning curious. Time and time again when the Court can not put their finger on a specifically enumerated constitution right, they always fall back on the old standby, the "Right to Privacy". This right is not listed in the constitution, but rather is derived from the Right to Liberty in a legendary colossal stretch from a law review article which I believe demonstrates more why there should be a right to privacy rather than if there is a right to privacy in the constitution. You can read it here if you have trouble sleeping.

http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Br...

This "right" has been used to justify Roe v. Wade and of course, Lawrence v. Texas, the recent sodomy law case. I anticipate it will also be used to strike down the honerous Patriot Act. (Now, I'm a conservative, but I have to admit Ashcroft just has not forgiven the human race since he lost his Senate election to a dead man, and neither would I.)

I believe a right of privacy is an important right, but if the Court is going to rely on it as a fallback justification, I say we amend the constitution to include a direct Right of Privacy or "the right to be let alone". Then, it won't be an issue and Justice Scalia and Thomas will have nothing to say about it. This will of course never happen because it poses two extreme risks: (1) an admission that a right of privacy does not exist and (2) fallout if the amendment does not pass.

As I said before, I'm a conservative, but where I am liberal is the right for adults to engage in adult relationships. I believe gays should marry. It would definately cut down on the population boom, and makes for great lesbian porno.

What I don't like is when the Court goes too far in its activism. The Supreme Court, relying on the Lawrence ruling, has vacated the sentence of a gay teen and has requested that the Kansas Court revisit the sentence to determine if it is discriminatory to gay people. This doesn't make sense because the Lawrence ruling is a right of privacy case, and only O'Conner stated that it violated the equal protection clause. Clearly the Limon case and the Lawrence case violate the equal protect clause, but the Court does not want to say that because a state could fashion a law that was clearly anti-gay but applied equally to all persons, as in Bowers v. Hardwick in Georgia. This would undermine their "agenda" as Scalia has stated in his blistering and somewhat juvenile dissent. My problem with "revisting" the Limon case is that he was an adult (albeit a teenager) and the person he committed the sex act with was a minor, and thus a crime of statutory rape was commited. This is not the same as two adults going at it when cops walk in. The rapist deserves to rot in jail. The issue was the penalty was more severe for a same sex crime. I say increase the opposite sex penalty. This is a legitimate issue but one that has nothing to do with the Court's decision in Lawrence.

Now we have Senatory Frist who wants pass an amendment defining marriages as a legal union between two members of the opposite sex.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

The media is treating this as a "Republican" idea. But lest ye forget, it was that hypocrate Clinton who sold out his constituency on the eve of the 1996 election and quietly signed the first federal law to define marriage officially as a "union between one man and one woman."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...

It's funny how some liberal groups, like gays, were so blinded by their love of Clinton that their single issue, the right to marry a same sex partner, wihch is banned under Federal law by Clinton, didn't change their opinion of him one bit. (Poor minorities also got a royal screwing under the Welfare Reform act, too, which if passed under a Republican Presidency would have been considered racism, but under Clinton was considered an "incentive" to leave the welfare system. But, I digress.)

I say we call the law the Clinton Amendment, since he could rightly be considered the "pioneer" of the gay marriage ban movement.

I think this is two different posts, so Im gonna reply to the privacy one first.

I think amending the right to privacy is a very good idea, because basically it was implied when the consitution was framed. You had a right to privacy because when you shut your doors, nobody could get in or see anything without a search, which required a warrant. Now, your information is all over the place, and you can''t just stop it flowing outward by closing your doors.

The homosexual thing we talked about in another thread, but basically I have no personal problem with civil unions. Whether or not you believe it''s the same thing as marriages between the opposite sex, as far as the government is concerned I think it should be considered the same. I don''t think that sex should necissarily be involved either, if you want to put your life in someone else''s hands you should be allowed to. Gender, sex and relationships are too blurry right now for the government to be making hardline statements, because all it ends up doing is pushing everyone''s buttons. If people want to enter into a civil union with someone else, and the majority is ok with it, they should just let it happen. Just like I said in the other thread though, if a people don''t want to recognize that, then thats fine too. If the majority of the population wants to alienate the homosexual community, then that''s the stance the government should take as well, democracy and all. I always end up sounding pretty wishy-washy talking about this stuff

The fact that the two are related in this case seems like politics to me, in fact I never even knew this had anything to do with privacy, because all the headlines read ""Gays happy about removal of sodomy law"".

I think if a married couple is worried that two gay people having a civil union will hurt their ideals, they should seek councling ASAP.

Or, to amend that further:

I think if a married couple is worried that two gay people having a civil union on the other side of the country will hurt their ideals, they should seek counceling ASAP.

Right to privacy was the means but due process was really the ends of the supreme court decision. The fact that Texas protected the right to privacy of a majority group, but could arbitrarily take away those rights from a minority group was really the central point of the case. Ironically if like 9 other states they had confined their law to ""all sodomy is bad"" it might have taken much longer for it to get overturned. As it was, making something legal for one group (consenting hetero adults and sodomy) and illegal for another group (consenting gay adults and sodomy) is what ""federalism"" is supposed to protect against (Amendment 14 of constitution makes this explicit). It legalizes discrimination (like a lesser Jim Crow law) which leads to all kinds of things the supreme court has already put a stop to.

Both the christian right and gay groups see that this might lead to more civil rights for gays, stopping not at same-sex marriage, but at equal employment, and other discrimination law suits. Right now only some U.S. cities and a few states have laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual preference. That could change soon.

My problem with the ruling is that this is not an issue that should have been handled through the judiciary. This is yet another example of judiciary activism, where judges are shaping social policy based on their rulings. And that is not the purpose of the judicial system, much less the Supreme Court.

If laws are unreasonable, we ought to change the law through our legislatures, not the courts. As George Will wrote, ""''Unconstitutional'' is not a synonym for ''unjust'' or ''unwise.'' . . . Legislators can adjust laws to their communities'' changing moral sensibilities without creating, as courts do, principles, such as the broadly sweeping privacy right, that sweep away more than communities intend to discard.""

If the right to privacy protects adults engaged in private, consensual sex, how are we going to outlaw polygamy? The polygamist and all of his wives practice private, consensual sex.

How are we going to maintain laws against adult incest? It''s private, consensual sexual behavior in the security of one''s own bedroom. Why stop a forty-year-old man having sex with his consenting nineteen-year-old daughter"”or son? And why stop siblings as long as there''s consent?

One even has to raise the question of bestiality. Peter Singer, the eminent bioethicist at Princeton, argues that animals can consent since consent needn''t be verbal.

One of the most dangerous trends of the last forty years has been the rise of judicial activism and the subsequent messes that are created as a result.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

One of the most dangerous trends of the last forty years has been the rise of judicial activism and the subsequent messes that are created as a result.

I suppose Brown vs. Board of Education was just another case of ""dangerous"" judicial activism?

I suppose Brown vs. Board of Education was just another case of ""dangerous"" judicial activism?

No, not at all. Brown vs. Board of Education is a perfect example of the judiciary striking down an unconstitutional behavior. The actions that the courts overturned in Brown vs. BoE violated the 14th Amendment, because ''seperate'' was found to not be ''equal''. And if Lawrence vs. State of Texas had been struck down because of the 14th Amendment (because the law in question was specifically against same-sex sodomy), I would have no problem. It is the invoking of the nebulous ''Right to Privacy'' that is the source of my concern.

However, the judicial actions of Earl Warren, Ramsey Clark and David Bazelton and their attempts to reform the criminal justice system are good examples.

Would you care to have a reasonable debate, or do you want to persist in an effort to paint someone that disagrees with you as a hate-mongering bigot?

With all due respect, Roo, your interpretation of the case is incorrect. You have confused the due process clause with the equal protection clause.

The due process clause in the 14th amendment means no one can take away your life, liberty or property without due process of law. Due process is one of those ""catch all"" indefinite legal phrases that means that the laws must comply with fundamental fairness to an individual''s rights. The Supreme Court has held that the ""right to privacy"" is one of the rights that a law can not unfairly abridge.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...

The Court did not say this law was unconstitutional because it only addressed homosexuals. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and was previously addressed in the Bowers v. Hardwick case. The Bowers case held that a broad ""no buggery law"" was constitutional because it did not violate the equal protection clause and was written to treat all equally. This case went farther and said that the Bowers argument of equal protection is no longer valid law because it is being misused. Broad laws that addressed same sex and different sex activities could be drawn, but would only be enforced against gays. The Court held that it doesn''t matter how the statute is phrased, the State has no legitimate interest in prohibiting this type of sex act behavior and any such law is a violation of the Right of Privacy, period. The majority knew if they followed the equal protection clause, the State could rewrite the law to be more inclusive and similar to Bowers and would only punish homosexuals under it. See page 14 of the decision.

Think of it like this, if you had a law that bans premarital sex of persons of a majority age; using Lawrence as precedent, the Court would not hold that it violates equal protection because it it unfairly restricts one group (unmarried people) over another (married). The Court would hold that the law is a violation of the right of privacy under the due process law, and their is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting this activity.

There''s the rub. Some people believe that morality is a legitimate interest. But who can say what is moral in this liberal age?

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

And if Lawrence vs. State of Texas had been struck down because of the 14th Amendment (because the law in question was specifically against same-sex sodomy), I would have no problem. It is the invoking of the nebulous ''Right to Privacy'' that is the source of my concern.

It should be interpreted as ""You have a right to privacy so long as no crimes are being committed in private."" I don''t see how the Right to Privacy is a slippery slope; such a right has been upheld in the past without it leading to ""bestiality, incest, and bigomy.""

All right, here''s the question that''ll shake things up: was Roe v Wade an example of gross judicial activism? Or would the striking down of that decision by the High Court be one?

All right, here''s the question that''ll shake things up: was Roe v Wade an example of gross judicial activism? Or would the striking down of that decision by the High Court be one?

And here''s the answer you probably don''t want to hear: Yes, Roe v. Wade was an example of judicial activism. There is no constitutional basis for the ruling, and because of that, striking it down wouldn''t actually be judicial activism.

That''s not to say that it wouldn''t be interpeted as such. But again, abortion is something best decided by the legislature. Not imposed by the courts. That is not the purpose of the Supreme Court.

As to your statement:

It should be interpreted as ""You have a right to privacy so long as no crimes are being committed in private."" I don''t see how the Right to Privacy is a slippery slope; such a right has been upheld in the past without it leading to ""bestiality, incest, and bigomy.""

That is kind of a circular argument. You do have the right to perform any legal actions you want in your home. Or in public. In the Texas case, they were doing something illegal according to the laws of the state they live in. You do not have the right to do anything you want in the privacy of your own home, just on the basis of ''privacy''.

And if you were trying to imply that you should be allowed to do anything you want in the privacy of your home, as long as everyone is consenting, then you just proved the point of my earlier post.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

In the Texas case, they were doing something illegal according to the laws of the state they live in.

And the Court has ruled that that particular law is unconstitutional, just like segregation. You seem to forget that the court has the judiciary review power, which it has exercised in this case.

And the Court has ruled that that particular law is unconstitutional, just like segregation. You seem to forget that the court has the judiciary review power, which it has exercised in this case.

But that wasn''t the point you were making. And yes, that law was unconstitutional, under the Equal Protections clause of the 14th Amendment. Not under an imaginary ''right to privacy''.

The imaginary ""right to privacy"" was first invented by five justices on the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold vs. Connecticut. That case held that married couples have a ""privacy"" right to purchase contraceptives. Though a narrow majority immediately agreed on the desired result, initially they could not agree on how to wrest such a ""privacy"" right from the Constitution. Eventually they cited genuine constitutional rights like those against unreasonable searches and seizures and against the taking of private property without compensation, among others, as the source of the nonexistent right to ""privacy.""

If a general right to ""privacy"" doesn''t leap out at you from those other rights, you''re not the only one. As Justice Hugo Black wrote in dissent: ""The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone.""

But the court insisted that the right of married couples to contraception being a ""right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system."" Of course, the Constitution still didn''t say anything about contraception. But all the blather about ""sacred"" bonds of marriage sounded portentous enough to be plausible.

Imaginary rights are easier to swallow if they are consistent with the country''s traditions and practices, not to say normal human impulses. But pretty soon, that ''right to privacy'' will lead us to having to accept things that aren''t quite so plausible anymore, like bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Imaginary rights are easier to swallow if they are consistent with the country''s traditions and practices, not to say normal human impulses. But pretty soon, that ''right to privacy'' will lead us to having to accept things that aren''t quite so plausible anymore, like bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc.

Again, keep saying that to invalidate your argument. This isn''t a slippery slope; if court rulings were as slippery as you uneccesarily fear, then the right to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family from intruders could be used to legalize murder.

You know, I take about half what I said back. Judicial activism is out of control at times. Just look at the 2000 election; surely that was a situation where the court was imposing its own social views on America, well outside the bounds of its mandate. Just read the comments made by Justice Scalia a day or so befire they issued their ruling. It''s pretty clear that this is a good example of what is wrong with the court system in this country. And I''m willing to bet you won''t agree with me despite my example being no different than yours.

Again, keep saying that to invalidate your argument. This isn''t a slippery slope; if court rulings were as slippery as you uneccesarily fear, then the right to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family from intruders could be used to legalize murder.

Rat, are you even reading my posts? Keep saying what? How on Earth do you possibly infer the right to commit murder from self-defense? Saying that invoking the ''right to privacy'' to legitimize one form of sexual behavior between consenting adults might lead to the legitimization of other forms of sexual behavior between consenting adults on the same basis is not even in the same ball park as saying that self-defense could lead to the legalization of murder.

As to your ridiculous allegations about the 2000 election: first, let me say this, ""Let it go.""

Secondly, I will refer you to the points of Thomas Sowell, fellow at the Hoover Institute, and someone much smarter than either you or I:

If the Supreme Court of the United States had not stepped in to stop the endless re-re-recounts in Florida, George W. Bush might have won a presidential election more times than Franklin D. Roosevelt -- and all in one year. What has been even worse than all the legal and political wrangling that has dragged on for weeks after the election is that there was no real basis for any of it. The Florida justices simply ignored the law in order to step in and impose their own ideas. It all started with Al Gore''s flimsy excuses for doing manual recounts. After George W. Bush won the election in Florida and then won the official recount, Gore had to come up with something to cause a re-recount, under different rules.

First it was the ""butterfly ballot"" that was supposedly so ""confusing"" that you had to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. But vast numbers of Floridians had managed to vote for either Gore or Bush on these ballots, without being rocket scientists.

What allowed Al Gore to get a third bite at the apple was that it was within the discretion of the individual county election officials whether or not to order a manual recount when a candidate requested one. Candidates demand recounts where they lost, but Gore demanded a manual recount where he had won -- in heavily Democratic counties. Why? Because that was where he had the best chance of finding Democratic election officials likely to grant his request on flimsy grounds. Since Gore lost statewide, he could have asked for a recount in all 67 Florida counties, but that wasn''t what he wanted.

What Gore wanted -- and got -- was a manual recount in a few Democratic strongholds, based on local Democratic officials'' guesses as to what dimpled chads meant, while the vast majority of the counties in the state counted only clear perforations of the ballot as votes. That meant freezing Bush''s slim majority vote totals in the rest of Florida, while allowing local Democrats in these few counties to go prospecting for more Gore ""votes"" by counting dents on the ballots as votes.

It is hard to imagine a more grossly unfair method of conducting a recount. Yet, when the Democrats still had not come up with enough new ""votes"" as the deadline for certifying the election approached, they asked Secretary of State Katherine Harris for an extension of the deadline. She declined to extend the deadline prescribed by law -- as the law gave her the discretion to do.

Now the Florida Supreme Court stepped in and transferred the discretion that the law gave to the Secretary of State to themselves, granting an extension. After the new extended deadline passed and the official election results were certified, the Gore legal team came back again to ask for another manual recount, under the rules for contesting a certification. However, as one of the dissenting justices on the Florida Supreme Court pointed out, ""only the ''unsuccessful candidate'' may contest an election,"" so ""Vice President Gore''s choices of the three particular counties was improper because he was not ''unsuccessful'' in those counties.""

Not to worry. The 4-3 majority on the Florida Supreme Court now ordered a statewide recount. Based on what? Not on the law, according to the court''s own chief justice, who dissented bitterly. That''s where the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in. What the Florida Supreme Court did at the eleventh hour might have made some sense as a remedy weeks earlier, when there was plenty of time -- if there had been anything to remedy, which there wasn''t.

Nothing had happened in the Florida election that does not happen in other elections. Voter error, voter omission of votes for some offices (""undervotes"") and trivial irregularities are commonplace, despite all the hype and hysteria in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court rushed in to solve a non-problem -- and their ""solution"" created a mess that threatened a constitutional crisis.

Before the U. S. Supreme Court intervened, a team of professors from Harvard, Berkeley, Cornell and Northwestern universities did their own detailed statistical analysis and concluded that Bush might win the latest recount by a larger margin than he won the first time.

The real issue, however, was not whether Bush would have won yet again in the latest in a series of recounts. The real issue was whether this kind of perversion of the law was to be allowed to continue -- and to provide a precedent for chaos after every future close election.

Regarding your reference to Scalia''s comments, what example? Please show me or send me a link. At least give me the benefit of the doubt before making arbitrary decisions about my objectivity.

As I said before, I''m a conservative, but where I am liberal is the right for adults to engage in adult relationships. I believe gays should marry. It would definately cut down on the population boom

Minor topic change. While I don''t have strong feelings about the main substance of this thread, this statement caught my eye.

Most of the developed parts of the world are facing population collapse. Japan and Western Europe and Russia are reproducing at rates far below sustainment level, a fact with serious implications for pyramid-scheme social welfare systems prevalent in all developed countries (including the US). And, though the term ""pyramid-scheme"" is fairly loaded, I honestly don''t mean anything negative by it. It was the only term that I could think of that stressed the fundamental fact that these systems rely on ever increasing populations in order to maintain adequate financing.

The United States is only growing its population through massive influxes of immigrants.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Rat, are you even reading my posts? Keep saying what?

You are repeating arugements to support your case used by Senator Rick Santorum which likened gays to rapists and child molestors, remarks which were universally denounced. You claim that this case isn''t about homosexual rights, but evoking that kind of argument makes one question your view on this.

How on Earth do you possibly infer the right to commit murder from self-defense?

How can you say the right of two consenting adults to exercise their right to practice their life-style in private will lead to legalized rape and child molestation? I called your views into question first.

Saying that invoking the ''right to privacy'' to legitimize one form of sexual behavior between consenting adults might lead to the legitimization of other forms of sexual behavior between consenting adults on the same basis is not even in the same ball park as saying that self-defense could lead to the legalization of murder.

Really? We''re talking about one legal prescedent being applied towards something else closely related. You''re talking about legal sex being used to excuse illegal sex. I''m talking about legal murder being used to excuse illegal murder. The court is capable of distinguishing between legal and illegal murder; why don''t you think they''ll be able to distinguish between legal and illegal sex?

As to your ridiculous allegations about the 2000 election: first, let me say this, ""Let it go.""

I was using an example of judicial activism. If you read the ruling and who voted how, you''ll see it was an entirely partisan effort. And totally uneccessary. The recounts show Bush won Florida, therefore, the Supreme Court did not and should not have gotten involved. What was the Bush camp so afraid of from the recounts, even though they won Florida fair and square? My attempt was to show that anybody can take a court ruling they don''t like (Bush v. Gore, Roe v. Wade) and use it as an example of judicial activism, saying it''s an example of what''s wrong with the court system. Clearly, some people here are too dense to see that.

Secondly, I will refer you to the points of Thomas Sowell, fellow at the Hoover Institute, and someone much smarter than either you or I:

And I''ll hit you with my own scholar and do this board the service of not flooding it with text that could just as easily be linked to.

The problem with the judicial activism point, in my opinion, is that it swings both ways. In this ruling people who fear consensual adult homosexual sex (for whatever possible reason one could have for such a thing) see this ruling as judicial activism. In the reverse scenario it could be called precisely the same thing, the court upholding or even refusing to hear the case would just be conservative homophobic activism. It''s a wash.

Well, its interesting to debate. But the reality is if the Supreme Court says there is a right to privacy there is, until they tell us there isn''t, which is why I want the constitution amended to include it. Obviously the right to privacy wouldn''t include incest, anymore than freedom of speech also you to say George Carlin''s 7 dirty words.

Rat,

You quite honestly make minimal sense. You don''t follow through on points, and you make statements that have no basis in either logic or fact. And for at least two posts you have made innuendos regarding my being either stupid or bigoted.

If you care to make inferences, have the balls to ask outright. Either that or leave it out and rely on fact and logic to make a point. Take a lesson from Lawyeron in how to have an intelligent conversation.

To your credit:

My attempt was to show that anybody can take a court ruling they don''t like ( Bush v. Gore , Roe v. Wade ) and use it as an example of judicial activism, saying it''s an example of what''s wrong with the court system.

That is the first point you have made, in heaven-knows how many posts, that actually makes sense. You are absolutely correct that anyone can take a ruling they don''t like and cry ''judicial activism''. And there are conservative judges imposing their social views on the legal system as well. I never denied that. But, objectively speaking, there has been a significant rise in judicial activism in the last 40 years, and it has had detrimental impact on society.

To sum up, the points that I made and you left unresponded to are:

1. That the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is correct, however by overturning it on the basis of right to privacy, as opposed to Equal Protections, it opens the door for the legalization of sexual behavior that is best left illegal.

2. Social policy is best defined through the actions of the Legislature, not the Judiciary.

3. Roe v. Wade is a case of judicial activism, and Brown v. Board of Education is not.

You have made several statements that take what I said, and leapt the the farthest possible extreme. I assume that is becuase you are incapable of making a rebuttal that makes you sound reasonable unless you are being compared against unreasonable extreme. Examples:

1.

How can you say the right of two consenting adults to exercise their right to practice their life-style in private will lead to legalized rape and child molestation?

When did I say it would lead to legalized rape exactly?

2.

if court rulings were as slippery as you uneccesarily fear, then the right to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family from intruders could be used to legalize murder.

Do you even know the definition of the word murder?

3.

I suppose Brown vs. Board of Education was just another case of ""dangerous"" judicial activism?

Do you just assume that everyone that has an opposing viewpoint is a hatemonger?

There''s more, but I don''t feel like taking the time to extract them right now.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

You quite honestly make minimal sense. You don''t follow through on points, and you make statements that have no basis in either logic or fact. And for at least two posts you have made innuendos regarding my being either stupid or bigoted.

Just because you don''t agree with my points doesn''t make them less valid or less logical.

If you care to make inferences, have the balls to ask outright. Either that or leave it out and rely on fact and logic to make a point.

Fine. You used Rick Santorum''s clearly bigotted remarks to support your point. Have the courage to admit your view is controversial and downright offensive to a lot of people.

Take a lesson from Lawyeron in how to have an intelligent conversation.

Take a lesson from Ulairi on civility in debates (did I just say that?).

That is the first point you have made, in heaven-knows how many posts, that actually makes sense. You are absolutely correct that anyone can take a ruling they don''t like and cry ''judicial activism''. And there are conservative judges imposing their social views on the legal system as well. I never denied that. But, objectively speaking, there has been a significant rise in judicial activism in the last 40 years, and it has had detrimental impact on society.

Examples? So far you have cited the ""right to privacy"" issue as the problem. It is a judicial prescedent (as Lawyeron has noted). You can''t change it. Go ahead, cite something else.

1. That the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is correct, however by overturning it on the basis of right to privacy, as opposed to Equal Protections, it opens the door for the legalization of sexual behavior that is best left illegal.

So they didn''t pick the best angle. On the whole, the decision to overule the Texas law was right. The wording of the majority opinion is left open to debate. But, seeing how is this is a ruling from the highest court in these United States of America, live with it.

2. Social policy is best defined through the actions of the Legislature, not the Judiciary.

I seem to recall a rather big piece of social policy in the legislature needing a big kick in the pants by Brown vs. Board of Education. All three branches of the government have the power to dictate social policy: the legislature by laws, the executive by executive orders, and the judiciary by legal rulings. If all three do not have this power, there is an imbalance in our three-tiered government. It is this balance of power that makes our republic work.

3. Roe v. Wade is a case of judicial activism, and Brown v. Board of Education is not.

Yes and no for both. If you disagree with RvW, it''s judicial activism. If you disagree with BvBoE, it''s judicial activism. Personally, I don''t see how you can agree with the principle of the RvW decision and disagree with the Court''s handling of it. There''d be no way in Hell you''d get any sort of pro-choice legislation through Congress, then or now. So, unless you want to go on leaving the impression you''re anti-abortion, speak now.

You have made several statements that take what I said, and leapt the the farthest possible extreme.

Since you leave no room for anybody to see otherwise...

I assume that is becuase you are incapable of making a rebuttal that makes you sound reasonable unless you are being compared against unreasonable extreme.

I believe I just did.

When did I say it would lead to legalized rape exactly?

""bestiality, incest, polygamy"" I''ll assume that the incest wasn''t consensual.

Do you even know the definition of the word murder?

Killing somebody. Answer my question instead of dodging it.

Do you just assume that everyone that has an opposing viewpoint is a hatemonger?

Do you assume that everybody who has a differing opinion hates America?

I really have no idea why I keep letting you pull me in to this.

Just because you don''t agree with my points doesn''t make them less valid or less logical.

What points exactly? I seem to recall that you attacked my points, not that you have made any of your own.

Fine. You used Rick Santorum''s clearly bigotted remarks to support your point. Have the courage to admit your view is controversial and downright offensive to a lot of people.

I haven''t seen Rick Santorum''s remarks, and I know I didn''t reference something I haven''t seen. Give me a link so I can see the points I supposedly used.

And how is saying that ''using the right to privacy to legalize one form of sexual behavior might lead to the legalization of other forms of sexual behavior'' is either controversial or offensive? To restate: I never said ''rape is good'', I said there are sexual behaviors that are illegal for a reason and this ruling might lead to their legalization because of this precedent.

Take a lesson from Ulairi on civility in debates (did I just say that?).

Last time I looked, it took you two posts to start attacking me through innuendo. And even in my post, I never called you a name or made insinuations about your person. I said your arguments make no sense, and you are rude. Big difference, and I''m sorry you can''t recognize that.

But, seeing how is this is a ruling from the highest court in these United States of America, live with it.

I never implied that I wasn''t. I have no problem with the intent of the ruling, only the stated reason for the decision: the right to privacy as opposed to Equal Protections.

I seem to recall a rather big piece of social policy in the legislature needing a big kick in the pants by Brown vs. Board of Education . All three branches of the government have the power to dictate social policy: the legislature by laws, the executive by executive orders, and the judiciary by legal rulings. If all three do not have this power, there is an imbalance in our three-tiered government. It is this balance of power that makes our republic work.

That is a blatantly incorrect statement. In simplest terms, the Legislature makes the laws (i.e. social policy), the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary expains and applies the laws.

Brown v. BoE is not judicial activism, because they were removing a situation that violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when the Jurist makes a decision based on factors that are extrinsic to the Constitution. By that measuring stick, Brown V. BoE is not judicial activism, and Roe v. Wade is.

And for your information, I am pro-choice (in the first trimester) and anti-abortion. I personally think that abortion as a form of birth-control is an abhorrent practice. But it should be legal because there are legitimate reasons for it (again, in the first trimester).

""bestiality, incest, polygamy"" I''ll assume that the incest wasn''t consensual.

No, if you read my first post, all of the actions I referred to were consensual acts between legal adults. I never implied that any violent or non-consensual act would be impacted by this ruling. That was purely you.

Killing somebody. Answer my question instead of dodging it.

Murder is defined as an illegal killing of another person, usually with premeditation. Self-defense is legal, and therefore not murder. By definition, there is no such thing as a ''legal murder''. Semantics, I know, but words are all we have here, so let''s use them correctly.

Answer what question? I don''t think you actually asked one. I think that you introduced the whole ''self-defense = murder'' arguement to again cast my reasonable points in the farthest extreme. If you asked a question in there, it got lost, so please restate it and I would be happy to answer.

Do you assume that everybody who has a differing opinion hates America?

Could you please demonstrate where I said you hate America? Can you show me where I said anything negative about you, as opposed to your argument? Because I can demonstrate where you implied that I was a bigot.

Ok, let''s tone it down. A lot.

Ok, let''s tone it down. A lot.

Not a problem mon capitan.

Conversation''s been done for quite a while anyway.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

That is a blatantly incorrect statement. In simplest terms, the Legislature makes the laws (i.e. social policy), the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary expains and applies the laws.

No, it isn''t incorrect. All three branches have the power to unilaterally make policy. The executive branch can make policy by executive order. The legislative by approving laws and can override a presidential veto by 2/3rds majority. The judiciary can and does by court rulings. Your statement is the 8th Grade oversimplified explanation of the relationships between the three branched government; my statement reflects what each branch has the power of doing. So go ahead, please say that the President really doesn''t have the power of Executive Orders, despite it being practiced thousands of times.

Brown v. BoE is not judicial activism, because they were removing a situation that violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when the Jurist makes a decision based on factors that are extrinsic to the Constitution. By that measuring stick, Brown V. BoE is not judicial activism, and Roe v. Wade is.

So, is judicial activism always bad, even though you agree with the principle of the decision?

Answer what question? I don''t think you actually asked one. I think that you introduced the whole ''self-defense = murder'' arguement to again cast my reasonable points in the farthest extreme. If you asked a question in there, it got lost, so please restate it and I would be happy to answer.

Original question: ""The court is capable of distinguishing between legal and illegal murder; why don''t you think they''ll be able to distinguish between legal and illegal sex?""

Could you please demonstrate where I said you hate America? Can you show me where I said anything negative about you, as opposed to your argument?

And I can demonstrate how you questioned my patriotism:

As to your ridiculous allegations about the 2000 election: first, let me say this, ""Let it go.""

So I don''t bow down and kiss the feet of Caesar. Big deal. Does that make me less of an American? Just because I''m not a conservative, does that mean I am not a true American?

Because I can demonstrate where you implied that I was a bigot.

Well, when you echo the statements of bigots, its easy to mistake the echo for the idea...

So go ahead, please say that the President really doesn''t have the power of Executive Orders, despite it being practiced thousands of times.

Can you name one EO that defined social policy?

So, is judicial activism always bad, even though you agree with the principle of the decision?

Yes, if only on the grounds that it is sloppy. It also allows for one person or non-representative group to enforce a mandate on the people with no basis in either the Constitution or the laws of the land. A ruling that is based on the interpetation that is intrinsic to Constitution is the original intent of the Founders.

""The court is capable of distinguishing between legal and illegal murder; why don''t you think they''ll be able to distinguish between legal and illegal sex?""

I am pretty sure they can. But if the right to privacy says that two consenting adults want to have intercourse in any way they want, why should the courts have a problem with other forms of sexual activity that are currently illegal?

By the way, I would hope that the courts don''t succumb to the pressure of people that think truly deviant acts should be made legal. And the response to my argument is that polygamy has legal impacts outside the bedroom (division of assets, child rearing, etc), i.e. no one has ever issued laws against having a three-way, only a three-way marriage; bestiality and consensual adult incest have health implications that stretch outside the bedroom and could impact the public well-being. There are plenty of reasons why those acts should never be legalized, it just saddens me that even the theoretical possibility of their legalization was made possible by a sloppy ruling.

So I don''t bow down and kiss the feet of Caesar. Big deal. Does that make me less of an American? Just because I''m not a conservative, does that mean I am not a true American?

Brother, you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder if you think I was calling you un-American. You don''t have to bow down and kiss anyone''s feet. That''s the beauty of the Bill of Rights. If you take my comment that you should ''let it go'' as an insult, then accept my apology. Didn''t mean to hit a sore spot. But again, you didn''t demonstrate that I actually insulted you, or questioned your patriotism.

As far as you not being conservative, I don''t care one whit. But I do care about sloppy arguments. If you want to make a point, make it. Don''t call me names. It implies that you are incapable of proving your point through logic and fact and have to resort to rhetoric and insults.

Well, when you echo the statements of bigots, its easy to mistake the echo for the idea...

Again...argue the point as opposed to calling names. Show me the link I requested, and answer the points, or give up the conversation.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Can you name one EO that defined social policy?

Here''s a nice big list of recent ones.

And here''s a list of some rather alarming ones that could turn America into the very police states we''re trying to overthrown across the world.

But if the right to privacy says that two consenting adults want to have intercourse in any way they want, why should the courts have a problem with other forms of sexual activity that are currently illegal?

You are selling our court system short if you think that they''ll just sit back and let the illegal deviancy you''ve described earlier happen.

There are plenty of reasons why those acts should never be legalized, it just saddens me that even the theoretical possibility of their legalization was made possible by a sloppy ruling.

With abortion legal, some have made the argument that the killing of babies is now legal. It won''t happen because people are smarter than you are apparently giving them credit for. Name an instance where a similar ruling or law led to the legalization of ""immoral"" and ""illegal"" practices.

But again, you didn''t demonstrate that I actually insulted you, or questioned your patriotism.

By calling my legitimate concerns with the 2000 ruling on the election as ""ridiculous,"" you opened a pretty big door to questioning my stance on numerous other affairs conducted by the present ruling doctrine of this nation. I really am getting tired of having to proove my Americanism time and time again.

Don''t call me names. It implies that you are incapable of proving your point through logic and fact and have to resort to rhetoric and insults.

Name one instance where I out and out called you a name. You have directly insulted my intelligence on numerous occasions here. Instead of directly responding to my points, you have dismissed them all as illogical or not factual without backing up that assertion with the same logic or fact you claim I lack.

Again...argue the point as opposed to calling names. Show me the link I requested, and answer the points, or give up the conversation.

You said:

But pretty soon, that ''right to privacy'' will lead us to having to accept things that aren''t quite so plausible anymore, like bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc.

You have likened the homosexual lifestyle to these offensive and illegal activities. That has been construed as offensive language time and time again, especially of late.

You know, you claim that you practice rational discourse, but instead of arguing my points, you have stooped to the very practices you have accused me of exercising while not backing it up with the very kind of proof you seek. I challenge you to point out where I openly called you a bigot by name. I challenge you to find where I have not used fact to back up an argument. And I challenge you to respond to points civily without resorting to provocative language such as you used in your last sentence.

And for those still lost on the definition of judicial activism, another definition:

From here:

The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges'' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected ""political"" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs. On such a view, judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent ""trustees"" on behalf of society.

And the actual opinion from the case in question, Lawrence v. Texas with selections reprinted here:

We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ""It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."" Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The High Court has stated that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendmant gives homosexuals the right to practice sex without the interference of the government. Clear and concise citation of Constitutional law. No random citation of ""fuzzy"" liberal ethics. The ruling had the clear grounding in Constitutional law and any accusations to the contrary fall flat with these quotations.

Conversation, good. Yelling at one another, bad.

This is getting pretty close to being locked.

Here''s a nice big list of recent ones.

Thank you for linking to the White House. However, please point out which of that list defines soical policy in the US? Because, I might be dense, but I don''t see how the establishment of the Bob Hope Patriot award is setting social policy.

With abortion legal, some have made the argument that the killing of babies is now legal. It won''t happen because people are smarter than you are apparently giving them credit for. Name an instance where a similar ruling or law led to the legalization of ""immoral"" and ""illegal"" practices.

Again, I am not sure what the first part of your statement means. Abortion, is again by definition, the killing of an unwanted child. And, regardless of your opinion about when a a fetus becomes a child, late term, partial birth abortions are definitely the legal killing of a baby.

As to your question, I can''t, off the top of my head name a specific case (and I mean a specific legal case) where judicial activism led to the immediate legalization of an illegal or immoral act. However, at a later date we can dicuss the role of judicial activism in the criminal reform movement of the 1960''s, and the subsequent rise in the crime rates; or the role of judicial activism in stretching the limits of free speech while simultaneously reducing the rights of property; or any number of other things.

Name one instance where I out and out called you a name.

Okay, you said:

Well, when you echo the statements of bigots, its easy to mistake the echo for the idea...

Which implies that I am a bigot. On the same vein, you said:

I suppose Brown vs. Board of Education was just another case of ""dangerous"" judicial activism?

Again, now implying that I am against civil rights. Or try this one:

Do you assume that everybody who has a differing opinion hates America?

Not sure where I said people that don''t have the same viewpoints ''hate America''

You have likened the homosexual lifestyle to these offensive and illegal activities.

No, I never did any such thing. I did say that using the right to privacy as the basis for the decision would give people who practice deviant sexual behavior precedent to call for the overturning of laws pertaining to them. Not the same as saying they are equivilant on any level.

So no, you never ''openly'' called me a bigot. Insinuated, yes. Called, no.

You know, you claim that you practice rational discourse, but instead of arguing my points, you have stooped to the very practices you have accused me of exercising while not backing it up with the very kind of proof you seek. I challenge you to point out where I openly called you a bigot by name. I challenge you to find where I have not used fact to back up an argument. And I challenge you to respond to points civily without resorting to provocative language such as you used in your last sentence.

Rat, I really don''t think you have read anything I have posted, other than to find things to go off on. I am not sure how much more rational I can be. You have thrown points out there with no backing since we began, and still haven''t addressed my original point, other than to say:

So they didn''t pick the best angle. On the whole, the decision to overule the Texas law was right. The wording of the majority opinion is left open to debate. But, seeing how is this is a ruling from the highest court in these United States of America, live with it.

So you, in a roundabout way, said that I was right in saying they should have overturned the Texas law, but for different reasons. And that was the whole intent of my original post. And your final response is: ''Live with it''. Okay, done. I will.

The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges'' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society

That is the exact point that terrifies me. The framers of the Constitution put very clear checks and balances in place, and to say that one judge or panel of judges ""can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution"" is so completely against the framework of the judiciary that your quoted political science professor should go back to school.

Your excerpt from the ruling:

Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ""It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."" Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

That is exactly what gives credibility to my original post. Making this rulling on the grounds of Equal Protections erases this whole conversation.

Again, your excerpt:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific.

That is the very definition of ''fuzzy''. ""The Founders weren''t specific enough, so we''ll make up a ''right to privacy''"". Thank you for proving my point.

Conversation, good. Yelling at one another, bad.

This is getting pretty close to being locked.

No problems Elysium. I''m done. This is fruitless anyway.