Subject:
|
Supreme Court strikes down anti sodomy laws
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:13:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
90 times
|
| |
|
|
Yaay. Perhaps one of the best rulings so far this term (I was somewhat
unimpressed with the U of M law school ruling).
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=5&u=/ap/20030627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy
Kennedy gets it:
'The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each
other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Their right
to liberty under (the Constitution) gives them the full right to engage in their
conduct without intervention of the government.'
But color me disappointed in Scalia and Thomas, who dissented... I expected
better of them...
"Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considered the Texas law at issue
'uncommonly silly,/ he could not agree to strike it down because he found no
general right to privacy in the Constitution. "
But on the other hand...
'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,' - Thomas
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Supreme Court strikes down anti sodomy laws
|
| (...) How grotesque. The nightmare of the Anti-Federalists come to life: that which is not stated explicitly is therefore not a right. Ergo, the 9th Amendment is not worth even the words with which it is stated. Scalia used to impress me with his (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
