06-26-2003, 02:42 PM | #11 | |
Elminster
Join Date: January 16, 2003
Location: Michigan
Age: 58
Posts: 419
|
Quote:
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution.
__________________
Ever notice that "What The Hell!" is always the right decision?- Marilyn Monroe |
|
06-26-2003, 02:59 PM | #12 | |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 3,257
|
Quote:
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy’s rationale. She indicated that the law should have been overturned on grounds that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The article also specifically mentioned that the ruling did not address the issue of the 14th Amendment violation. Thursday’s ruling was based on arguments by the plaintiffs’ attorneys that because the men were arrested in a private residence while engaging in consensual sex, the raid amounted to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. It did not address a second legal point raised by the plaintiffs, that by mandating disparate treatment for two classes of citizens, the statute violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. While I agree that this is a major victory for gay rights, I think it's a bit erroneous to classify it as a victory for human rights. Of course, the real "kicker" is that the Texas legislature can come right back and attempt to re-instate the law...so long as they rewrite it to apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. That way, they ARE within the "equal protection" parameters of the 14th Amendment, since the law is applied equally and without discrimination.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth |
|
06-26-2003, 03:06 PM | #13 | |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: October 29, 2001
Location: North Carolina
Age: 61
Posts: 3,257
|
Quote:
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE]By the same token, IronDragon, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria.
__________________
[img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth |
|
06-26-2003, 03:06 PM | #14 | |
Elminster
Join Date: January 16, 2003
Location: Michigan
Age: 58
Posts: 419
|
Quote:
__________________
Ever notice that "What The Hell!" is always the right decision?- Marilyn Monroe |
|
06-26-2003, 03:10 PM | #15 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE] That could have been it...but I believe I am correct and you are wrong...she caved...thats my opinion and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary so...Ill stick with it [img]smile.gif[/img] |
|
06-26-2003, 05:40 PM | #16 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
|
|
06-26-2003, 05:46 PM | #17 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Quote:
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
|
06-26-2003, 05:47 PM | #18 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Maybe Justice O’Conner realized that governmental support of bigotry is NOT protected by the constitution. [/QUOTE]By the same token, IronDragon, I find it interesting that minority groups call it "affirmitive action" if a college board uses race as part of their decision process, but label it as "profiling" if the police do it. Seems like conservatives are not the only ones advocating "selective application" of certain criteria. [/QUOTE]A. Like "affirmative action," "racial profiling" is something that serves a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. And, it is legal. Your gripe falls on deaf ears. Now, if Congress outlaws it, then that is LEGISLATIVE, but the courts have upheld racial profiling. B. Everyone selectively labels. It's called bias, and we all have it. C. O'Connor, like other justices, notably Kennedy, has had her opinion change over time, becoming more conservative in certain areas and more mainstream in others. People are dynamic, thankfully. She is still a Repug showcase item, and was on the latest cover of NRO's magazine I believe. D. With all of the beatings the right to privacy has taken in the past 2 years, we should all rejoice at any decision limiting the government playing nanny in our bedrooms. I may not be gay, and I may find the notion that one male can find another male's hairy smelly body attractive personally offensive to my senses, but I will NOT tell other people how to live their lives. I should be allowed to stick it in my wife's arse or mouth ("sodomy" = both of these, btw), and they should be allowed to do likewise with whomever they choose. |
|
06-26-2003, 06:09 PM | #19 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
[quote]Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Quote:
2. Since this was decided on the right to privacy (is seems -- I have not read the opinion YET), the Texas legislature can NOT reinstate the law. Had it been decided on the 14th Amendment, then the Texas liegislature COULD reinstate the law -- so long as it was equally applicable to heteros. 3. Bonus question for all: where is the Right to Privacy in the US Constitution? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] |
|
06-26-2003, 06:11 PM | #20 |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 51
Posts: 5,373
|
Woo Hoo! I wonder how this will effect the long jail sentences doled out to homosexuals for laws like these in South Carolina? As I recall some judge gave two guys more than five years for having oral sex in their home. Will they go free?
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More Human Rights Abuses | Morgeruat | General Discussion | 2 | 01-04-2006 02:40 PM |
Britain calls for change to European Convention on Human Rights | Dreamer128 | General Discussion | 0 | 09-08-2005 06:37 AM |
Pissed off with Human Rights Groups | Avatar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 61 | 09-12-2004 04:16 AM |
Iraqi police to train in country with poor human rights record and high police abuse | Skunk | General Discussion | 19 | 08-28-2003 06:33 PM |
RIGHTS!,...Human Rights...Inalienable Rights.... | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 11 | 01-31-2002 05:06 PM |