26-06-2003 20:13									#31
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Interesting that their job is to interpret the constitution and that they reversed themselves from 17 years ago. Did the constitution change and I miss it or are the Supremes more subject to the court of public opinion than we would all like?

Any serious student of the Court knows this. While the Court doesn't sway with the breeze, they do consider public senitiment in their decisions. When they changed their mind on the execution of the mentally disabled last year, they said that part of the reason was because what society considers cruel and unsual has changed (I'm heavily paraphrasing).

It is is no accident that Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, the striking down of the Death Penalty (albeit temporarily), and many other liberal decisions happened when they happened.

	26-06-2003 20:22									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

"are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,"

5 of the Justices are agreeing with this very braod privacy opinion. One, O'Conner, concured with the result on othe grounds. I suspect that language pretty much ends state involvement in private consesual sex between competant adults.

	26-06-2003 20:25									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Lorizael And America enters the 21st century! Plato, the Constitution is an old document and the exact intent of the framers is not really known. Because of this, it is interpreted differently by different people.

Try reading the federalist papers and there oppositions treatise. Exactly what the framers were thinking was put down in great detail.

	26-06-2003 20:27									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

What's with the fascination of what people thought hundreds of years ago? I'm confused as to why people think it matters?

The world and society has changed since then...

	26-06-2003 20:29									#35
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,"

Did this just set up a legal basis for same sex marriage? I think I feel the ground shaking.

	26-06-2003 20:32									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher What's with the fascination of what people thought hundreds of years ago?

Yeah. I like relying on the plain meaning of the words rather than incomplete records in making interpretations of the law.

	26-06-2003 20:32									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: You wouldn't have had the 11th amendment if that were so.

Not so. The 11th stands for something else entirely. It has nothing to do with state v. state disputs.

	26-06-2003 20:39									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Did this just set up a legal basis for same sex marriage?

No, marriage is an insitution regualted by the state, for, among other reaseons, economic and child rearing, a very much different animal than private consensual sex.

	26-06-2003 20:42									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Yeah. I like relying on the plain meaning of the words rather than incomplete records in making interpretations of the law.

The problem is that meaning of words change over time and are subject to interpretation, like "cruel and unusual" with regards to punishment.

	26-06-2003 20:43									#40
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Asher What's with the fascination of what people thought hundreds of years ago? I'm confused as to why people think it matters? The world and society has changed since then...

Well Asher, The US was founded on certian principles as to governments relationship to citizen. These shouldn't change over time. And it was 200+ years BTW. The fasination is how those societal changes interact with those principles.

	26-06-2003 20:57									#41
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The problem is that meaning of words change over time and are subject to interpretation,

There is less room for interpretation and judicial acrobatics than relying on incomplete records and trying to divine original intent from that.

	26-06-2003 21:03									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Did this just set up a legal basis for same sex marriage? I think I feel the ground shaking.

I'm afraid that's a bit of wishful thinking, Che. Maybe someday... I'm just itching to see what happens when a state challenges a gay couple married in Ontario.

	26-06-2003 21:04									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler First they uphold affirmative action

Perhaps you're confused. They upheld the concept that a school could use AA to enhance diversity (which they see as a good thing to do) by a narrow margin but totally slashed the stupid prejudicial manner in which it was done by 6-3. It wasnt a total victory for the anti-AA types but it was more of a victory for them than the pro-AA types.

Back to the topic

This is an important ruling, especially since the balance has gone strongly in favor of privacy vs the states rights to enact laws that might be deemed intrusive.

I'm trying to think of obvious effects of the ruling and the one that comes to mind is marijuana. Is it intrusive to be arrested for smoking dope in the privacy of your own home?

	26-06-2003 21:07									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer I'm just itching to see what happens when a state challenges a gay couple married in Ontario.

Why wouldn't that get slapped down for the same reasons Lefty stated?

	26-06-2003 21:10									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Here is the opinions in PDF
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...ctx62603opn.pdf
The majority ruled on substansive due process/privacy grounds. O'Conners's opinion is on equal protection. The dissenters not only talk about the issues, but the hazards of overturning precents, Noting that many opinions on abortion after Roe v Wade relied more on prcedent than upon reasoning on the issues previously decided.

Last edited by Lefty Scaevola on 26-06-2003 at 21:33

	26-06-2003 21:15									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why wouldn't that get slapped down for the same reasons Lefty stated?

It probably would get slapped down in the current environment, but it would still be interesting to see what would happen... especially in certain jurisdictions, such as your personal favorite, the 9th Circuit...

	26-06-2003 21:15									#47
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet quote: Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards. How about a law to make it illegal to be from Texas?

How about we make a law were you get your ass kicked every day by a Texan, whether you need it or not ?

	26-06-2003 21:30									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer It probably would get slapped down in the current environment, but it would still be interesting to see what would happen... especially in certain jurisdictions, such as your personal favorite, the 9th Circuit...

I think it would depend on the treaty between Canada and the US which allows the two countries to recognize each other's marriages.

Hmm, other areas to which this ruling could be applied: gay parent's can no longer have their children taken from them solely on account of being gay.

	26-06-2003 21:34									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Hmm, other areas to which this ruling could be applied: gay parent's can no longer have their children taken from them solely on account of being gay.

Like Lefty said, that's a WHOLE different animal than having the right to gay sex.

	26-06-2003 21:35									#50
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Here is the opinions in PDF http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...ctx62603opn.pdf The majority ruled on substansive due process/privacy grounds. O'Conners's opinion is on equal protection. The dissenters not only talk about the issues, but the hazards of overturning precents, Noting that many opinions on abortion after Roe v Wade relied more or prcedent that upon reasoning on the issues previously decided.

The Scalia dissent is fairly shrill for Scalia. And what is, pray tell, the rational basis for sodomy laws? Upholding community morality - which is Scalia's position? That begs the question of whether the community morality is in fact rational. This is the typical mistake in reasoning whereby the background conditions (here: community morality) are taken as fixed and "rationality" follows from an application of those background principles. A parallel case is the existence of so called "creation science" where the background condition is a literalist reading of the Bible from which follows creation of the universe in 7 days about 5000 yrs ago. What is ignored is the rationality of the background position - the literalist reading of the Bible - which contradicts everything else we know about the universe.

Likewise, Scalia is not questioning the background here. What is the rational basis for animus against homosexuals - the background morality that Texas supposedly enforces via criminal statute?

Scalia has certainly demonstrated that he is no libertarian. If he truly believes states may legislate morality without regard to actual demonstrable harms, then he is not reading the 14th Amendment as a good libertarian would.

	26-06-2003 21:38									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

This is not something the government should be regulating.

	26-06-2003 21:39									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Good for them.

	26-06-2003 21:48									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Scalia also showed his hypocrisy, at one point lamenting that the court was siding with the "gay agenda" and then saying "I have nothing against homosexuals."

Swine.

	26-06-2003 21:52									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Hmm, other areas to which this ruling could be applied: gay parent's can no longer have their children taken from them solely on account of being gay. Like Lefty said, that's a WHOLE different animal than having the right to gay sex.

If gay sex is legal, on what basis can the state continue to take away the children of gay couples?

	26-06-2003 21:55									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Boris:

I forgot to mention Scalia's "I've got nothing against homosexuals, but ..." moment. I'm sure some of his best friends are gay.

	26-06-2003 21:57									#56
	Remove this text

quote: If you cannot be punished for having gay sex, on what basis can the state continue to take away the children of gay couples?

Because taking away children of gay couples doesn't really fall under the right to privacy in the bedroom. It's totally different.

quote: Scalia also showed his hypocrisy, at one point lamenting that the court was siding with the "gay agenda" and then saying "I have nothing against homosexuals."

He doesn't. He actually has nothing against bans on sodomy for heterosexual couples as well (he feels the federal government has no role in overruling the states in those cases). And truth be told the court IS siding with the 'gay agenda', ie, the shifting of public opinion fostered by homosexual groups.

	26-06-2003 22:02									#58
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Imran, you miss the point: the phrase "gay agenda" is a loaded one denoting some sort of monolithic group out to do no good. Scalia's claim not to have anything against gays is contradicted just by using such a fallacious term.

What's the straight agenda?

	26-06-2003 22:03									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Keeping you limp-wristed poofs barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, of course!

Er...

	26-06-2003 22:09									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Imran, you miss the point: the phrase "gay agenda" is a loaded one denoting some sort of monolithic group out to do no good. Scalia's claim not to have anything against gays is contradicted just by using such a fallacious term.

I don't think that was his goal (to say they are out there to do no good). The 'gay agenda' meaning bowing to the pressures of society rather than just looking at it without societal pressures. Hell, I use terminology like that (Muslim agenda, Republican agenda, etc) without meaning it in a demeaning way.

Not a surprise that Scalia would be in the dissent, he's always been against expanding substantive due process rights (I guess, like me, he considers the whole idea to be unconstitutional :shrug: ).