Forums | MacLife

Northwind... if you hate Texas so much... why don't you leave? It's a fine state full of good people, but with flaws like any other.

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html

According to this page, our now-defunct law didn't even include prison time. Look at those other states!

This wasn't a ruling just against a backward Texas law, it was against several laws; it's just that someone from our state was the one who challenged it. Taking that into account, and the fact that our punishment was much less draconian that some others, I consider us the least screwed up of the bunch. If you want to make cracks about any state... look at Idaho.. 5years to life. Ouch.

"Maybe the courts will usurp more powers specifically granted to the states, and overturn more laws passed by elected representatives in those states.

No, not maybe.  Definitely.

Regardless of what you think of this law (or any other), this is a dangerous thing for the courts to be doing."

I am someone who is very critical of the supreme court bullying the states... but the fact is that in this case they were doing exactly what they should have done, which is to strike down unconstitutional laws.

That was posted before I read you last post. By the way, I agree with you on the Michigan ruling. Diversity over equal opportunity is ridiculous.

The SCOTUS has every right to hear the case and strike down a law made by a state if it goes against the Constitution.  The US Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.  I agree that the federal government has way overstepped its bounds, but in this case, it was a state making a law it shouldn't have made in the first place.

I just don't think that this law goes against the Constitution.  It is a stupid, ignorant law, yes.  It should have been repealed long ago, yes.  But unconstitutional?  No.  States, as I mention above, have every right, and often do, to pass laws limiting the freedom of their citizens.  This decision was based on the direction of the wind, not on the basis of Constitutional law.

Proscriptions against [sodomy] have ancient roots.  Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights.  In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws.  In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults.  Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradtion' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

I just don't think that this law goes against the Constitution.  It is a stupid, ignorant law, yes.  It should have been repealed long ago, yes.  But unconstitutional?  No.  States, as I mention above, have every right, and often do, to pass laws limiting the freedom of their citizens.  This decision was based on the direction of the wind, not on the basis of Constitutional law.

Proscriptions against [sodomy] have ancient roots.  Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights.  In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws.  In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults.  Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradtion' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

States can restrict freedoms 'tis true, except for those granted to all citizens via the Constitution - and within reason.  The SCOTUS is also fully able to reverse prior decisions.  So you're buddy Scalia's point about what happened in the past is hardly relevant, especially considering these laws weren't challenged until recently.  I'm inclined to agree more with the majority opinion on this one.  With any luck, this will lead the way into striking down more laws that infringe upon people's privacy.

Unfortunately, any guarantee of privacy in the Constitution is shaky at best and subject to interpretation.  What we really need is an amendment clearly granting citizens a certain degree of privacy.

Though there is discussion of "fundamental proposition(s), and "fundamental decisions," nowehere does the Court's opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a "fundamental right" under the Due Process Clause;

But that's just the point--the majority attacks Bowers for misapprehending the nature of case by making the issue out to be about specifically homosexual sodomy, when in fact the majority is claiming sexuality within the home is what the Due Process Clause protects.

"To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home."

nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a "fundamental right."

I fail to see how this can impugn the judgment of the Court.  At most, what you're saying is, "the Court should have submitted the law to greater scrutiny than it did."  Skimming the opinion, it seems that the Court was trying to defeat the notion that sodomy laws could serve any legitimate state function so that Bowers could be overruled. 

As for the Court's ability to overturn previous decisions, this is true, however the general rule followed by the court is stare decisis, especially when the prior ruling is of a quite recent date.  The Court, as may be its prerogative, chose to ignore this.

The overruling of Bowers is probably the most objectionable part to the opinion.  But even if the Court hadn't, we'd almost certainly still see a 6-3 decision in which the majority would have struck down the law solely on Equal Protection grounds.

As for the principle of stare decisis, there's no easy way to decide how much weight it should have.  But I contest that recent constitutional rulings should necessarily have stronger weight.  If a Justice dissents from a decision and then, next year, is faced with an opportunity to overrule the decision, is he obligated to wait a decade before doing so?  That seems intuitively wrong.  Moreover, the longer that constitutional rules stand, the more ingrained they become within society, suggesting that stare decisis is more appropriate when decisions are old rather than new.

The majority cites Payne v. Tennessee in support of violating stare decisis in this case.  It's very fitting that they do so.  Payne was a 1991 case in which Booth v. Maryland was explicitly overruled.  Booth was in 1987--it took only 4 years before the case was overruled.  No one changed their mind--it had only to do with new members on the court.  Guess who dissented in Booth and was in the majority in Payne?  Rehnquist and Scalia.

I'm not good at all this legalese. I just know that I pay my taxes, get the stickers for the car on time, tip waiters and waitresses, mow my grass, maintain my house, and function in my community as a law abiding citizen who doesn't do anything outside of my own home that interferes with or lowers the quality of life of my neighbours.

I am looking forward to the day when, as a resident of Virginia, I can enjoy a good romp in the boudoir without committing a felony.

An adjunct to my prior post:

And look, no name-calling nor harsh words!  Wow!

If the constitution is the highest law of the land then it is wrong for each state to have a different interpretation of the contents of the constitution.

Amen!