Subject:
|
Re: Supreme Court strikes down anti sodomy laws
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:50:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
194 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
“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.”
|
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 stricter Constitutional readings, but lately
he just seems like a right-wing, Republican apologist.
I’m disgusted by the way these guys tried to look socially liberal while
simultaneously shooting down the very reason social liberality is possible.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Supreme Court strikes down anti sodomy laws
|
| Yaay. Perhaps one of the best rulings so far this term (I was somewhat unimpressed with the U of M law school ruling). (URL) gets it: 'The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
