Recommended Posts
Jayruss 0
QuoteI read the decision and dissentions in their entirety a few months ago when they were fresh. I concluded at the time that the reasoning was bogus. I don't remember the details well enough to defend myself now.
I'll reread the source material later today (maybe tonight) and refresh myself so I can answer this properly.
Understandable, send me the link because I have not read the full decision.
QuoteNo, it is not constitutionally right to defend moral inequities, although it sounds nice. Moral inequities which are not addressed in the constitution can be addressed by CHANGING the constitution. There is no clause in there for "Be nice and reasonable and merciful and just." Maybe there should have been, but there isn't.
I think a statement such as “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” gives right to defend moral inequities. Isn’t promoting the general welfare by removing discriminating laws?
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
Well Proffesor, I am no one to interpret it. Like I said to the other person, It was an opinion.
But I will reiterate my point once again.
It is not up to the court to CREATE law.
IMHO there should be constitutional change in the term of Judges. I have contacted my senators about this. To think a judge can stay in office for life unless they violate law is absurd.
Maybe we should be allowed to recall them as well. Although, this would cause other problems I agree, but if we get a few bad apples in there trying to make a name for themselves what can you or I do about it? That isn't very democratic is it?
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
But I will reiterate my point once again.
It is not up to the court to CREATE law.
IMHO there should be constitutional change in the term of Judges. I have contacted my senators about this. To think a judge can stay in office for life unless they violate law is absurd.
Maybe we should be allowed to recall them as well. Although, this would cause other problems I agree, but if we get a few bad apples in there trying to make a name for themselves what can you or I do about it? That isn't very democratic is it?
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Jayruss 0
QuoteThe SC gave gay people something they deserve, but they did it for the wrong reasons. And tomorrow or next year they may give the bad guys something on the same basis. Very scary.
I don’t quite understand your analogy but I am trying. I don’t think the court gave gay people something they deserve. They didn’t give gay’s the right to have same sex sex, they simply removed the states ability to criminalize moral rights.
You obviously believe the courts did this out of social pressure rather than under legal premise?
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
QuoteQuoteI read the decision and dissentions in their entirety a few months ago when they were fresh. I concluded at the time that the reasoning was bogus. I don't remember the details well enough to defend myself now.
I'll reread the source material later today (maybe tonight) and refresh myself so I can answer this properly.
Understandable, send me the link because I have not read the full decision.
Sure: Opinion, concurrances, and dissentions
QuoteI think a statement such as “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” gives right to defend moral inequities. Isn’t promoting the general welfare by removing discriminating laws?
Oh geez... you go to the preamble. That's a damn good move on your part.
Well, shit. I'm stymied. I definitely agree that resolving moral inequities promotes the general good, all other things being equal. But I also believe that a predictable, controllable process promotes the general good. We have conflicting results here.
God forbid I should agree with Thomas, but this is the most reasonable thing said by any of them in the whole case:
QuoteJustice Thomas, dissenting.
I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' " Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
I have to say Narc... I am slowing gaining more respect of you. Damn, I wish it weeren't so. Having read your posts and the court brief, I find it difficult not to agree with Thomas. What he says is exactly correct. He expresses his opinion about the silliness of the law but clearly states his job is just to copare the constitutioality of said law and apply it.
I am not quite sure how this wasn't unanimous...I think it is pretty clear cut. There is nothing unconstitional about this, and as the title of the post reads... IT IS CORRECT.
In escence the other judges ignored their responsibility as judges and instead ruled on the morality of the law, not the law itself.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
I am not quite sure how this wasn't unanimous...I think it is pretty clear cut. There is nothing unconstitional about this, and as the title of the post reads... IT IS CORRECT.
In escence the other judges ignored their responsibility as judges and instead ruled on the morality of the law, not the law itself.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
wmw999 2,452
Why do you wish you didn't respect Narci?
He's intelligent, well-read, and open-minded in interpreting things the way they seem to be written, rather than how he would like them to be written.
Wendy W.
He's intelligent, well-read, and open-minded in interpreting things the way they seem to be written, rather than how he would like them to be written.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means . . .
That is literally, 100% true. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution; that's their job. They decide, for example, that the second amendment means you can possess rifles and handguns but not chemical weapons; possessing such arms is not protected by the constitution.
What does that mean? Be very, very careful in who we appoint as supreme court justices. We don't have any direct influence over the process, but many senators and representatives still listen to public opinon, and it doesn't hurt to get your opinion known to them.
That is literally, 100% true. The Supreme Court interprets the constitution; that's their job. They decide, for example, that the second amendment means you can possess rifles and handguns but not chemical weapons; possessing such arms is not protected by the constitution.
What does that mean? Be very, very careful in who we appoint as supreme court justices. We don't have any direct influence over the process, but many senators and representatives still listen to public opinon, and it doesn't hurt to get your opinion known to them.
billvon 2,998
>But where in the constitution does it say that adults can't do what
>they want in their bedrooms?
The US constitution says nothing about it. The Texas constitution does; it's illegal there. The issue is - does something in the US constitution say that Texas _cannot_ pass anti-gay laws? Scalia believes the answer is no.
>they want in their bedrooms?
The US constitution says nothing about it. The Texas constitution does; it's illegal there. The issue is - does something in the US constitution say that Texas _cannot_ pass anti-gay laws? Scalia believes the answer is no.
QuoteIt is not up to the court to CREATE law.
I hate to break it to you, but yes, a Court also creates laws. Here's how checks and balances work.
1) Legislature - creates laws
2) Executive - creates laws and enforces laws. (Creates, you say? Why, yes. They make regulations under enactment by Legislature. Regulations are executive creations designed to aid in enforcement of Statutes)
3) Judicial - Create laws and interpret laws.
Ever hear of "common law?" Those are judicial doctrines. Negligence is common law. Tort law is mainly common law. Contract law (with respect to services and not goods) is common law. Courts create it. What if there is a wrong which no statute addresses? The court has to use its judgment to correct it, and so makes law.
Statutes are law. Regulations are law. Common law is law. Case law is law.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make, it just kinda came out wrong!
Well, the reason why is because deep down inside I don't want to like him
.
He and I differ so greatly in ideology I find it difficult to comprehend his beliefs as I am sure he finds it difficult to comprehend mine. So, i wish i didn't agree with him or respect him. But I have to. He is a very rational person. This goes against all of my know sterotypes of Liberal thinkers. Liberals tend to be more emotioal based people.
Somewhere deep inside of me I view him as the enemy. That may not be nice or a good thing to say, but that is how I feel. So, it is difficult for me to say I respect him.
But, in this case atleast, he recognized that even though his ideology is one way, the arguement which the court ruled on was somewhat bogus.
It takes a big man to agree with something which you have strong convictions against. I know I would have a tough time doing it.
Hope that clears it up. That is just the way I feel right or wrong.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
.
He and I differ so greatly in ideology I find it difficult to comprehend his beliefs as I am sure he finds it difficult to comprehend mine. So, i wish i didn't agree with him or respect him. But I have to. He is a very rational person. This goes against all of my know sterotypes of Liberal thinkers. Liberals tend to be more emotioal based people.
Somewhere deep inside of me I view him as the enemy. That may not be nice or a good thing to say, but that is how I feel. So, it is difficult for me to say I respect him.
But, in this case atleast, he recognized that even though his ideology is one way, the arguement which the court ruled on was somewhat bogus.
It takes a big man to agree with something which you have strong convictions against. I know I would have a tough time doing it.
Hope that clears it up. That is just the way I feel right or wrong.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Heck, storm! I agree with you. Narci is a lot like billvon. Bill's logic is impeccable, even when he reaches the wrong conclusion.
Narci seems very libertarian, and his viewpoints on personal liberty and the role of the Supreme Court are a reflection of his viewpoints sometimes being at odds with self-interest.
For that, I respect him immensely. Much like I respect you and your beliefs. We just reach our same conclusions a little differently, is all.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Narci seems very libertarian, and his viewpoints on personal liberty and the role of the Supreme Court are a reflection of his viewpoints sometimes being at odds with self-interest.
For that, I respect him immensely. Much like I respect you and your beliefs. We just reach our same conclusions a little differently, is all.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Regarding the somewhat silly name of this thread:
Every time I have gay sex, I firmly ignore the constitution. I also ignore the price of tea in china and the mysteries of quantum physics. In fact, when I'm having gay sex I ignore EVERYTHING except gay sex. I definitely ignore the telephone.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
Every time I have gay sex, I firmly ignore the constitution. I also ignore the price of tea in china and the mysteries of quantum physics. In fact, when I'm having gay sex I ignore EVERYTHING except gay sex. I definitely ignore the telephone.
First Class Citizen Twice Over
AndyMan 7
I was wondering what gay sex paid attention to....?
_Am
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
billvon 2,998
>He and I differ so greatly in ideology I find it difficult to comprehend
> his beliefs as I am sure he finds it difficult to comprehend mine. So,
> i wish i didn't agree with him or respect him. But I have to. He is a
> very rational person. This goes against all of my know sterotypes of
> Liberal thinkers. Liberals tend to be more emotioal based people.
I think you'll find there's not much correlation between political ideology, how smart someone is, how emotional someone is, what color their skin is, whether they're straight or gay etc. People are all different, and any time we decide to put all of one 'type' of person in one big bucket to define who they are, we're doomed to failure.
> his beliefs as I am sure he finds it difficult to comprehend mine. So,
> i wish i didn't agree with him or respect him. But I have to. He is a
> very rational person. This goes against all of my know sterotypes of
> Liberal thinkers. Liberals tend to be more emotioal based people.
I think you'll find there's not much correlation between political ideology, how smart someone is, how emotional someone is, what color their skin is, whether they're straight or gay etc. People are all different, and any time we decide to put all of one 'type' of person in one big bucket to define who they are, we're doomed to failure.
Jayruss 0
Happy Now?
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
I agree to disagree.
Through my experience I have found Liberal people to be more emotional involved in their ideology than conservative people.
Is that a broad brush ... YES, but that is what I have found to be true in my life. Liberals are typically more sympathetic, and that is why their ideology revolves around helping out the less fortunate for the greater good.
Conservatives not nearly as much.
Just my experience.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Through my experience I have found Liberal people to be more emotional involved in their ideology than conservative people.
Is that a broad brush ... YES, but that is what I have found to be true in my life. Liberals are typically more sympathetic, and that is why their ideology revolves around helping out the less fortunate for the greater good.
Conservatives not nearly as much.
Just my experience.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Storm, have you concluded that I'm a "liberal thinker" based on anything I've said or just because I'm gay?
First Class Citizen Twice Over
First Class Citizen Twice Over
I'm extremely conservative. Nevertheless, I do not have any close conservative friends. Honestly, they bore me.
I'm no genius, but I've found that the smartest people I've ever known are liberals. The stereotype is the bleeding heart without rationality. I've learned otherwise.
Those with whom I hang are brilliant, with impeccable logic. We identify the same problems, we just go to different solutions.
It's much like a road trip. There are any of a number of ways of getting to the objective. If I were to meet you in Denver, we'd go opposite directions, and your way wouldn't fit my logic.
Same with conservatives and liberals. We just have have different starting points, and different systems of belief.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I'm no genius, but I've found that the smartest people I've ever known are liberals. The stereotype is the bleeding heart without rationality. I've learned otherwise.
Those with whom I hang are brilliant, with impeccable logic. We identify the same problems, we just go to different solutions.
It's much like a road trip. There are any of a number of ways of getting to the objective. If I were to meet you in Denver, we'd go opposite directions, and your way wouldn't fit my logic.
Same with conservatives and liberals. We just have have different starting points, and different systems of belief.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,998
>Through my experience I have found Liberal people to be more
>emotional involved in their ideology than conservative people.
Hmm. I've found both to be true. Check out the Juanesky (or Steel) vs WMW999 arguments, and you'll see two guys getting emotional over an issue that Wendy is pretty straightforward about. But then on the other hand, there's John Kallend who gets somewhat emotional when he's talking about stuff with, say, TheAnvil. But in person John's not an emotional guy.
>emotional involved in their ideology than conservative people.
Hmm. I've found both to be true. Check out the Juanesky (or Steel) vs WMW999 arguments, and you'll see two guys getting emotional over an issue that Wendy is pretty straightforward about. But then on the other hand, there's John Kallend who gets somewhat emotional when he's talking about stuff with, say, TheAnvil. But in person John's not an emotional guy.
Narc,
Through other threads I have argued with you in...
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Through other threads I have argued with you in...
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
OK, so that is your experience.... I am stereotyping here because of the experiences I have had. That is the way I feel. Maybe in 10yrs that will change when I have more experience, but in the bubble I live in, that is what i have seen.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty
And Scalia isn't _ALWAYS_ correct...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites