Judge Thomas hits it on the head kinda - GoFuckYourself.com

hitinface · 06-26-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
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 mem-ber 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 valu-able law enforcement resources.

Of course he then goes on to find "find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,?

Weird.

Hitinface

High Quality · 06-26-2003, 01:33 PM

And this in reference to....

BVF · 06-26-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by High Quality
And this in reference to....

the supreme court just struck down the 8 states laws that were banning homosexual sex.....

Now you can pack the fudge without worry of prosecution

XYCash · 06-26-2003, 01:42 PM

again...for those of you who seem to have no clue what sodomy is...it is both anal sex and oral sex.

CoolE · 06-26-2003, 02:50 PM

You notice that people don't refer to America as the "land of the free" anymore? The fact that 3 of 9 Supreme Court Justices think that the state has a right to determine exactly what sex acts can and cannot be done by adult citizens in their own bedroom explains why. Congratulations America for entering the 20th century, you are now only 100 years behind the times on issues of privacy, freedom, and individual rights.

Here's Scalia's dissenting opinion: http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd.pdf

It reads like The Communist Manifesto. He says "The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of liberty, so long as due process of law is provided" - so there you go, as long as there is a vote on it, citizens can be deprived of any liberty by the state. Land of the free, my ass!!

I love a lot of things about the USA, but holy shit, when it comes to issues of individual freedom, y'all are fucked up! And it's your intention to teach religious freedom to Afghanis and Iraqis?!?! Sigh.

But anyway, have a legal blowjob tonight in celebration of a small step forward.

PornoDoggy · 06-26-2003, 03:09 PM

CoolE

First of all, Scalia's dissentimg opinion reads like the ANTI manifesto - anti-communist, anti-gay, anti-EVERY FUCKING THING. He is a typical shill of the religious right and the wackos that support them. However, you will note that it is the DISENTING opinion. That means his view did not prevail.

Suffice it to say I think that the Bush Administration is a disaster of epic proportions. But America is "now only 100 years behind the times on issues of privacy, freedom, and individual rights."?

Gimme a fucking break. Your statement, which has a nice rhetorical sound to it, unfortunately falls short in one minor little category - contact with reality.

In that respect, you and old Anton share a common bond.

TheJimmy · 06-26-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CoolE
You notice that people don't refer to America as the "land of the free" anymore? The fact that 3 of 9 Supreme Court Justices think that the state has a right to determine exactly what sex acts can and cannot be done by adult citizens in their own bedroom explains why. Congratulations America for entering the 20th century, you are now only 100 years behind the times on issues of privacy, freedom, and individual rights.

Here's Scalia's dissenting opinion: http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd.pdf

It reads like The Communist Manifesto. He says "The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of liberty, so long as due process of law is provided" - so there you go, as long as there is a vote on it, citizens can be deprived of any liberty by the state. Land of the free, my ass!!

I love a lot of things about the USA, but holy shit, when it comes to issues of individual freedom, y'all are fucked up! And it's your intention to teach religious freedom to Afghanis and Iraqis?!?! Sigh.

But anyway, have a legal blowjob tonight in celebration of a small step forward.

those freedom hating politicians and judges can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't fuck with Amendment # 2...

PornoDoggy · 06-26-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheJimmy

those freedom hating politicians and judges can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't fuck with Amendment # 2...

Pavlov proven correct again ...

hitintheface · 06-27-2003, 04:36 AM

I LOVE SCALIA...he is the best entertainment on the Supreme Court. He is like your drunk Italian neighbor who thinks he is Archie Bunker.....

hitinface

VideoVoyeur · 06-27-2003, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by XYCash
again...for those of you who seem to have no clue what sodomy is...it is both anal sex and oral sex.

Heh actually sodomy by law is ONLY described as anal sex.

Oral sex is either Fellatio or cunningless(sp?)

strainer · 06-27-2003, 07:25 AM

He is actually correct. There is no right to privacy in the constitution or the bill of rights, it was invented a while ago by lawyers.

Not saying I agree the Scalia here, but the point is the reason why the U.S. system is better than all others is because is federalist, with most powers going to the states.

And people like Scalia believe that rather than bringing crap like this to the Supreme court who really does lack the authority to do anything, the time would have been better spent electing people into the Texas state legistlature who would change the stupid fucking law.

Where it would not have taked 22 years or whatver.

It always amazes me that people are so willing to accept a dictatorship of a few old guys on the Supreme court passing edicts on things way beyond anything in the constitution, we need a few more Scalias and Thomases who will stick to the law...

Carrie · 06-27-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by VideoVoyeur

Heh actually sodomy by law is ONLY described as anal sex.

Oral sex is either Fellatio or cunningless(sp?)

On the contrary. The Texas law in question defines sodomy in this way:

Quote:

The appli-cable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: ?A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.? The statute defines ?[d]eviate sexual inter-course? as follows:
?(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
?(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of an-other person with an object.? §21.01(1).

Also, the Bowers vs. Hardwick case that was overruled yesterday addresses any type of sexual behavior between two consenting adults of opposite sex - so not only is this a victory for gays, it is a victory for heteros as well.
14 states including Virginia state that it's a crime to have oral sex - no matter who it's with, including your wife. Anal sex is a crime. Using a toy during sex (such as a vibrator) is a crime.

The striking down of the Texas law coupled with the overruling of Bowers vs. Hardwick wipes all of these "morality" laws off of the books.

The very interesting thing is that it also seems to free up some other sexual "crimes", such as the infamous victimless crime of prostitution. We shall see.

rbrruss · 06-27-2003, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strainer

And people like Scalia believe that rather than bringing crap like this to the Supreme court who really does lack the authority to do anything, the time would have been better spent electing people into the Texas state legistlature who would change the stupid fucking law.

... we need a few more Scalias and Thomases who will stick to the law...

The problem with your approach is a little thing called "the tyranny of the majority". Certain constitutional rights protect things that are not popular with the majority of voting citizens. For instance, the first amendment is primarily in place to protect the expression of unpopular speech. That's why you need courts to safeguard civil liberty to prevent it from being overrun by an intolerant majority.

TheJimmy · 06-27-2003, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PornoDoggy

Pavlov proven correct again ...

ding ding....

hell yeh and I got fat-headed dogs to go with it

genomega · 06-27-2003, 09:48 AM

As usual the thinking on this board is just a little shallow.

Sodomy laws were enacted in the US many years ago to
protect young boys, the USSC has just done away with that protection. What they have done is opened pandoras box.

This will be the new roe v wade in scope.

06-26-2003, 01:33 PM	#2
High Quality Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 5,741	And this in reference to.... __________________ RecurCash.com - Averaging $38/sale with 60% revshare in the first 4 months alone! Convert your TEEN traffic today @ better than 1:500 guaranteed. ICQ me: 18287590!

06-26-2003, 01:42 PM	#4
XYCash Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: here and there Posts: 582	again...for those of you who seem to have no clue what sodomy is...it is both anal sex and oral sex. __________________ XYCash Gay Affiliate Programs - Making Money For Webmasters Since 1999 - click here to sign up

06-27-2003, 09:48 AM	#15
genomega Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: NW Florida Posts: 1,190	As usual the thinking on this board is just a little shallow. Sodomy laws were enacted in the US many years ago to protect young boys, the USSC has just done away with that protection. What they have done is opened pandoras box. This will be the new roe v wade in scope. __________________ No Jerk TGP Gallery Monitor MoneyBookers

06-26-2003, 02:50 PM	#5
CoolE Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 451	You notice that people don't refer to America as the "land of the free" anymore? The fact that 3 of 9 Supreme Court Justices think that the state has a right to determine exactly what sex acts can and cannot be done by adult citizens in their own bedroom explains why. Congratulations America for entering the 20th century, you are now only 100 years behind the times on issues of privacy, freedom, and individual rights. Here's Scalia's dissenting opinion: http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/02-102p.zd.pdf It reads like The Communist Manifesto. He says "The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of liberty, so long as due process of law is provided" - so there you go, as long as there is a vote on it, citizens can be deprived of any liberty by the state. Land of the free, my ass!! I love a lot of things about the USA, but holy shit, when it comes to issues of individual freedom, y'all are fucked up! And it's your intention to teach religious freedom to Afghanis and Iraqis?!?! Sigh. But anyway, have a legal blowjob tonight in celebration of a small step forward.

06-26-2003, 03:09 PM	#6
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	CoolE First of all, Scalia's dissentimg opinion reads like the ANTI manifesto - anti-communist, anti-gay, anti-EVERY FUCKING THING. He is a typical shill of the religious right and the wackos that support them. However, you will note that it is the DISENTING opinion. That means his view did not prevail. Suffice it to say I think that the Bush Administration is a disaster of epic proportions. But America is "now only 100 years behind the times on issues of privacy, freedom, and individual rights."? Gimme a fucking break. Your statement, which has a nice rhetorical sound to it, unfortunately falls short in one minor little category - contact with reality. In that respect, you and old Anton share a common bond.

06-27-2003, 04:36 AM	#9
hitintheface Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: sw fla Posts: 6	I LOVE SCALIA...he is the best entertainment on the Supreme Court. He is like your drunk Italian neighbor who thinks he is Archie Bunker..... hitinface

06-27-2003, 07:25 AM	#11
strainer Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 418	He is actually correct. There is no right to privacy in the constitution or the bill of rights, it was invented a while ago by lawyers. Not saying I agree the Scalia here, but the point is the reason why the U.S. system is better than all others is because is federalist, with most powers going to the states. And people like Scalia believe that rather than bringing crap like this to the Supreme court who really does lack the authority to do anything, the time would have been better spent electing people into the Texas state legistlature who would change the stupid fucking law. Where it would not have taked 22 years or whatver. It always amazes me that people are so willing to accept a dictatorship of a few old guys on the Supreme court passing edicts on things way beyond anything in the constitution, we need a few more Scalias and Thomases who will stick to the law...