The Supreme Court made today a good day

[John Galt]

I've been working too much and been too grumpy lately, but this has cheered me up and made my day.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/sc...omy/index.html

[albionmoonlight]

I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period.

To me, the issue of whether sodomy is "right" or "wrong" does not even enter the debate.

I have yet to read the case, but I am interested when I get a chance. I assume, John, that Scalia was none too happy?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Agreed. Makes up for the travesty that was Bowers. Between this and the UofM Law affirmative action case, it hasn't been a bad week for US jurisprudence.

[Ben E Lou]

I guess the 10th Amendment is no longer valid...

[Ben E Lou]

Dola....well actually I'm not sure it ever was...

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period.

To me, the issue of whether sodomy is "right" or "wrong" does not even enter the debate.

I have yet to read the case, but I am interested when I get a chance. I assume, John, that Scalia was none too happy?

Of course. The usual three, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist all dissented. Scalia made some pithy comments about the Court taking sides in a cultural agenda.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I have yet to read the case, but I am interested when I get a chance. I assume, John, that Scalia was none too happy?

I haven't seen too much except for the parts in the CNN article (that he actually read his decision from the bench and criticized the Court for taking sides in the "culture wars"). I think Rehnquist is probably the most upset. He dissented from a University of Missouri decision in the 70s that allowed a gay student organization to exist. He compared allowing a gay club to allowing an organization of rapists. He seems to be the by far the most homophobic of the Justices. I had a chance to meet him a few years ago and he didn't express any regret in what he wrote in that decision.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Agreed. Makes up for the travesty that was Bowers. Between this and the UofM Law affirmative action case, it hasn't been a bad week for US jurisprudence.

Ummm....the Michigan case scares me. Did anyone HEAR a Supreme Court Justice of the United States say that the ruling was based on "the good of society?" I guess that whole thing of making rulings based on the United States Constitution is a thing of the past...

[Samdari]

Never is probably not true SkyDog.

However, lately.....

[albionmoonlight]

The 10th says that the states have the powers that are not given to the fed.

The 14th says that States cannot violate someone's due process rights.

The 10th amendment is not applicable here. This is not an area where the fed was trying to legislate in an area that was reserved to the states. It is simply a case of the state passing a law that conflicted with the federal constitution. When there is a conflict, the constitution wins by virture of it being the "supreme law of the land"--a stipulation to which every state agreed when it ratified the U.S. constitution.

For a quick example. A state could not pass a law that said that no woman could inheret property. That law would conflict with the 14th amendment. Even though local issues of property decent are certainly areas in which states have control over acts of congress, the laws that the state passes cannot conflict with constitutional provisions.

[Craptacular]

It's better than Monday's U of Michigan Law School ruling.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I guess the 10th Amendment is no longer valid...

SD, the decision doesn't affect interpretations of the 10th Amendment. If there is a core liberty or constitutional right at issue, it never gets to federalism questions. You may believe that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, but once you decide there is, federalism isn't an issue. Otherwise, states would be able to obliterate free speech, deny due process, and inflict cruel and unusual punishment (notice that the Bill of Rights doesn't include references to state actions). Once the 14th Amendment was passed, the Court "incorporated" almost all the rights in the first 9 Amendments to apply to the states (they didn't actually apply until that point). Nowadays, almost every constitutional protection applies to actions by the states, with the right to a jury being a notable exception.

[Coffee Warlord]

This doesn't make up for the 2 revolting US Supreme Court decisions monday.

One, the Univ of Michigan one, upholding what is in my mind reverse discrimination, 'point system' or not.

Two, and far worse, the lawsuit brought about the the Librarians Association, upholding enforced censorship of library internet access points.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
You may believe that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution

Of course not. That's a silly statement to make.

Nowadays, almost every constitutional protection applies to actions by the states[/b]

Unfortunately, you're spot on there...


For the record, I don't care about that particular law itself. However, it frightens me that the Federal Government is sticking its nose in more and more where it doesn't belong.

[sachmo71]

Welcome to the 21st century, Texas.

Skydog, why is it that any government, state or federal, should be allowed to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? I'm glad the government stepped in an struck down the law. In my mind, it's no ones business.

If the State sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong, isn't it a good thing that the government can call them on it?

[albionmoonlight]

But this is not the Federal Government sticking its nose in where it does not belong. The Constitution is the law of the states as much as it is the law of the feds (which, in part, is why states have to ratify amendments to the constitution before they can become effective). The Supreme Court of the United States interperted a provision of the Constitution to conflict with a state law. According to the Constitution, when a state law or an act of the US Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the state law/act of congress "loses."

I think the distinction here may be that I am thinking of the Constitution as the law of the land, and you are thinking of it as federal law.

Here's another example to illustrate my point.

In a recent case (Lopez), the U.S. Congress had passed a law saying that you could not possess a gun within X feet of a school. Mr. Lopez was busted under this law. The U.S. Supreme Court found that there was no basis in the Constitution for Congress to pass this law. Accordingly, the power to control this action was reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. Congress had no right to pass the law. The Constitution says when Congress has no right to pass a law, the law must die. So it died. (rightly, I think).

If, however, in that case, the state has passed a law saying that "no person shall possess a gun within X feet of a school," then that law would not conflict with anything and would be constitutional. That's the 10th Amendment in action.

Finally, if either the state or congress passed a law saying that "no black person shall own a gun," then the law would be struck down as violating the Constitution. Whether the law comes from the state or the fed., if it conflicts with the constitution, it is unconstitutional.

I can understand where you are coming from, SkyDog. From the perspective of Texas, Washington D.C. is telling them how to run their sherrif's office. Whether the decree comes from the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President may be a cute issue of interest to the lawyers, but from the state's perspective, it is all the same thing.

However, and I am one of the lawyers who enjoys this kind of hair splitting, I think that the distinctions that John and I have laid out are important in a larger sense--even if the immediate effect of them cannot be felt.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
For the record, I don't care about that particular law itself. However, it frightens me that the Federal Government is sticking its nose in more and more where it doesn't belong.

It sounds here like you do not believe that you think the federal government should be preventing the states from denying us constitutional rights, which is what this case was decided on.

You really think states should be able to deny us rights guaranteed in the U.S. constitution?

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--I don't want to understate my case. I would actually argue that those distinctions--in the long run--are much more important than the results in any individual case. Without them, we would not have a government by, of, and for the people.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Skydog, why is it that any government, state or federal, should be allowed to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? I'm glad the government stepped in an struck down the law. In my mind, it's no ones business.

That sounds great, but what happens when the Imperial Federal Government sticks its nose in again where it doesn't belong and changes a law that you DO happen to agree with? My concern isn't with that particular law, but with the power that the Feds are haphazardly wielding.

[scooper]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I guess the 10th Amendment is no longer valid...

Uh Oh. Sounds like succession grumblings out of Georia.

[Tekneek]

If all the US government did everyday was protect me from the tyranny of state governments attempting to restrict/invade my privacy, I would actually enjoy paying my taxes!

It is the job of the government to step in when your rights are being violated. They have determined that Texas telling you what sexual acts you are allowed to perform with other consenting adults is a violation of your freedom. This is a fantastic decision for everyone in this country. Hopefully it will be a sign that, in the future, the citizen will win the battles over privacy and individual rights, instead of the government always winning.

I don't know how anyone could be upset about this ruling, unless you think you really have a right to tell other adults what they are allowed to do consensually in the privacy of their own homes. If you think you have the right to do that, I really feel sorry for you.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by SkyDog
That sounds great, but what happens when the Imperial Federal Government sticks its nose in again where it doesn't belong and changes a law that you DO happen to agree with? My concern isn't with that particular law, but with the power that the Feds are haphazardly wielding.

Unfortunately, I tainted my point with my opinion.

If a law is deemed unconstitutional it should be abolished. The laws of the state should be checked by the federal government. Checks and balances are important. That's how I see this situation. The state of Texas made a law that was deemed unconstitutional by the highest court in the land. I don't see the decision as "haphazard". I would feel the same if it was a law that I didn't agree with.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
It sounds here like you do not believe that you think the federal government should be preventing the states from denying us constitutional rights, which is what this case was decided on.

Well of course not. My concern is that a state made a decision of what was illegal behavior, and the feds overturned it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Tekneek
If all the US government did everyday was protect me from the tyranny of state governments attempting to restrict/invade my privacy, I would actually enjoy paying my taxes!

LOL. That's actually a good point...

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well of course not. My concern is that a state made a decision of what was illegal behavior, and the feds overturned it.

They overturned it because it interfered with Constitutional rights though. You can't have it both ways.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Tekneek
If all the US government did everyday was protect me from the tyranny of state governments attempting to restrict/invade my privacy, I would actually enjoy paying my taxes!

It is the job of the government to step in when your rights are being violated. They have determined that Texas telling you what sexual acts you are allowed to perform with other consenting adults is a violation of your freedom. This is a fantastic decision for everyone in this country. Hopefully it will be a sign that, in the future, the citizen will win the battles over privacy and individual rights, instead of the government always winning.

I don't know how anyone could be upset about this ruling, unless you think you really have a right to tell other adults what they are allowed to do consensually in the privacy of their own homes. If you think you have the right to do that, I really feel sorry for you.

Tekneek, who's going to protect you from all enemies, foreign or domestic?

It's easy to see how people could be upset with this ruling, however. Homosexuality is NOT a popular lifestyle "choice" in this country, and that is what this law was really about.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well of course not. My concern is that a state made a decision of what was illegal behavior, and the feds overturned it.

SD, you are really confusing me here. It sounds like you are letting your ideology conflate different issues into the same response.

There is a difference between the federal government regulating intra-state (not interstate) commerece and enforcing constitutional rights protections. This Court has been extremely protective of states rights (moreso than any other in history) and since the Lopez decision, it has mostly continued to strike down federal actions beyond the scope of federal authority.

However, when the states adopt criminal laws that violate constitutional boundaries, then the Court strikes the down. If a state decided to execute criminals without an appeal, for example, it would be struck down as a violation of due process. If a state decided to make newspapers illegal, it would obviously be struck down as violating the First Amendment. Surely, you don't oppose action by the Court in those cases. This is no different - you clearly don't believe in a right to privacy, but don't act like this is a federal powers issue - the government has found a right to privacy in a long line of cases and this decision is a simple statement that states can't trample on that right (just like they can't trample on other constitutional rights).

[Anrhydeddu]

You cannot legislate morality. Once you make a moral issue a political one, like in legalizing the killing of unborn children, then it ceases to be an issue since a government should not impede upon the right to privacy. However, it is being extremely hypocritcal because it makes laws all of the time telling what a private landowner or private business what it specifically can and cannot do and will enforce those even without due process. What gives them the right to do this?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
This is no different - you clearly don't believe in a right to privacy

LOL. I've said several times that I believe a person should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as by force or fraud it doesn't deprive another of their right to life, liberty or property. I don't trust the Imperial Federal Government though, and anything resembling expansion of its power troubles me.

[Ajaxab]

"I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period."

This is an argument I cannot buy. Just because two consenting adults agree to do something in the privacy of their home does not make that activity immune from government intervention. There are a lot of consenting adults manufacturing drugs in the privacy of their own home that they then sell to people on the street. Does it mean the government should take its hands off this activity? I don't see too many people arguing that people should be able to make heroin in the privacy of their own homes.

The real question appears to be about the more far-reaching implications of the activity occurring in the privacy of one's home. Rather than confine the discussion to the privacy issue, we ought to be asking if what occurs in this privacy has consequences for society at large. That would seem to be the issue dividing people. Some would say homosexuality has serious consequences for society while others don't think it matters at all.

[sachmo71]

They sure do try, Bucc. Morality is volatile, and gets your name out there. It can turn you into a champion, too, and carry you all the way to Washington.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola---

To summarize my position. I didn't agree that the law should have been there, but I'm far more concerned that the Federal Government saw fit to jump in. We did it right in Georgia. The Feds upheld the law, then the GEORGIA Supreme court struck down the sodomy law a few years later.

[Anrhydeddu]

Morality is volatile

I personally disagree sachmo. It would be for those that makes up morality as they see fit.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Ajaxab
"I agree. The government should not have the right to control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. Period."

This is an argument I cannot buy. Just because two consenting adults agree to do something in the privacy of their home does not make that activity immune from government intervention. There are a lot of consenting adults manufacturing drugs in the privacy of their own home that they then sell to people on the street. Does it mean the government should take its hands off this activity? I don't see too many people arguing that people should be able to make heroin in the privacy of their own homes.

The real question appears to be about the more far-reaching implications of the activity occurring in the privacy of one's home. Rather than confine the discussion to the privacy issue, we ought to be asking if what occurs in this privacy has consequences for society at large. That would seem to be the issue dividing people. Some would say homosexuality has serious consequences for society while others don't think it matters at all.

But sexual acts, as long as they are consentual and done in private (i.e. no one can see or hear them) cannot be harmful to anyone except the people performing them. Unless I'm missing something?

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Dola---

To summarize my position. I didn't agree that the law should have been there, but I'm far more concerned that the Federal Government saw fit to jump in. We did it right in Georgia. The Feds upheld the law, then the GEORGIA Supreme court struck down the sodomy law a few years later.

You really need to clarify here. Do you or do you not think that the supreme court should overturn state laws that violate rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution?

[albionmoonlight]

AjaxAB--

Yes--you are right. There are some things that one does in the privacy of ones home in which the government has a say. I can take your example and make drugs "to sell to people on the street." Or I can shoot a bullet that goes through my window and hits another person. I'm sure that we can stretch our minds and think of lots of things that one can do in which all of the actors are located inside of a privately owned dewlling and in which all of the actors have expressed consent to do the activity, but which nonetheless demand government intervention.

I do not, however, believe that it is difficult to draw a distinction between those "mind exercise" activities and private sexual conduct.

I'll amend my statement to say that the goverment should not have the right to control the sexual conduct of consenting adults conducted in private.

[Anrhydeddu]

as long as they are consentual and done in private (i.e. no one can see or hear them) cannot be harmful to anyone except the people performing them. Unless I'm missing something?

Like taking illegal drugs?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You cannot legislate morality. Once you make a moral issue a political one, like in legalizing the killing of unborn children, then it ceases to be an issue since a government should not impede upon the right to privacy. However, it is being extremely hypocritcal because it makes laws all of the time telling what a private landowner or private business what it specifically can and cannot do and will enforce those even without due process. What gives them the right to do this?

Almost all criminal legislation is premised on morality. Murder, stealing, and kidnapping are all illegal under a particular conception of morality. The 8th Amendment bars punishment that is cruel and unusual (which pretty much means "immoral"). The criminal code is mostly filled with society's collective opinion on certain moral issues.

As for the hyprocrisy, I think you are conflating "privacy" with "private ownership." Admittedly, "privacy" is a slippery term, but tends to include things like the rights surrounding the decision to procreate, the rights of persons to not have certain parts of their body invaded, etc. The usually stem around family or very personal issues. Private ownership restrictions, on the other hand, are inevitable. Otherwise, you have no roads, massive pollution, and constant nuisance (noise, light, etc.). Some restrictions go to far, but not for "privacy" reasons.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Samdari
You really need to clarify here. Do you or do you not think that the supreme court should overturn state laws that violate rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution?

If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Like taking illegal drugs?

Heh. You opened up a can o' worms there now Buc.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...

So, if a state legislature enacts a law which violates the U.S. constitution, which is what happened here, the U.S. Supreme Court should stay out of it?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...

Technically, a state Supreme Court decision almost NEVER violates the Constitution - I think you mean the law they uphold violates the Constitution. If you arguing that a state Supreme Court always gets first say on the issue, that is pretty much the status quo. With a few extreme exceptions, the states go through their levels of appeals and once the state SC rules, the losing party can apply for a writ to have their case heard by the SC. Very few of these cases are actually heard, but the SC determines if the law in question is unconstitutional, not whether the actions of the state SC are unconstitutional.

[John Galt]

dola, I should say that some states don't actually have the SC rule - in states where the state SC has discretionary jurisdiction, they may refuse to hear the case. Still, the case can't go to the federal SC (except in very instances) until the state SC decides not to hear the case.

[Tekneek]

Originally posted by Ajaxab
[There are a lot of consenting adults manufacturing drugs in the privacy of their own home that they then sell to people on the street. Does it mean the government should take its hands off this activity?

The real question appears to be about the more far-reaching implications of the activity occurring in the privacy of one's home.

[snip]

Some would say homosexuality has serious consequences for society while others don't think it matters at all. [/b]

I do not have a problem with people making drugs in their own homes. In fact, I do not have a problem with them selling the drugs to people who are at least 18 years of age, either. I definitely do not have a problem with consenting adults producing any kind of drug in their home if it never leaves that property (keep in mind here, for the household to be consenting adults there cannot be any children there, or it is no longer just consenting adults). So, yeah, I would be in support of the government backing off of that. Now you've seen at least one person take this consistent position.

Homosexuality has serious consequences for society? Please share some of these in this thread. I am not aware of any such impending doom being brought on by homosexuality. If anything, religion and its fundamentalism is what is more likely to have severe consequences for all of civilized society.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by SkyDog
If a state Supreme Court violates the U.S. Constitution, then sure, but look very carefully at the CNN story...

What about if a state legislature passes a law that infringes constitutional rights? Do you believe that the United States Supreme Court should strike that law down?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
Technically, a state Supreme Court decision almost NEVER violates the Constitution - I think you mean the law they uphold violates the Constitution. If you arguing that a state Supreme Court always gets first say on the issue, that is pretty much the status quo. With a few extreme exceptions, the states go through their levels of appeals and once the state SC rules, the losing party can apply for a writ to have their case heard by the SC. Very few of these cases are actually heard, but the SC determines if the law in question is unconstitutional, not whether the actions of the state SC are unconstitutional.

Ok. Yes on the technicality there. Yes, the law they uphold.

Did this case go to the Texas Supreme Court though? It never says so in the article. It just says an appeals court upheld it. Is it just assumed that every case goes through a State supreme court?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ok. Yes on the technicality there. Yes, the law they uphold.

Did this case go to the Texas Supreme Court though? It never says so in the article. It just says an appeals court upheld it. Is it just assumed that every case goes through a State supreme court?

See my "dola" post. I believe the Texas SC declined to hear the case and so it was appealed to the SC (the next highest level).

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by SkyDog
LOL. I've said several times that I believe a person should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as by force or fraud it doesn't deprive another of their right to life, liberty or property. I don't trust the Imperial Federal Government though, and anything resembling expansion of its power troubles me.

I can't speak for the state of Georgia, but frankly, having met many of the mongoloids, er, men and women in the Arizona State Legislature in the past, I trust my state to do the right thing with regards to constitutional protections even less than the Federal government. The legislature in this state is so bad that even the Arizona Republic, a moderate-right wing newspaper by most standards, refers to the Republican dominated legislature here as the "90 Dwarves."

All I can say is Thank God for the Supreme Court. The constitution and bill of rights worked the way they were supposed to here. This case was a clear invasion of privacy in what was, after all, a matter between consenting adults.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ok. Yes on the technicality there. Yes, the law they uphold.

Did this case go to the Texas Supreme Court though? It never says so in the article. It just says an appeals court upheld it. Is it just assumed that every case goes through a State supreme court?

Pretty much. The Supreme Court wants to give states the chance to interpert their own laws and how they relate to the federal constitution.

There is also the chance that a state may strike down a law for a reason unrelated to the federal constitution (say if it violates the state constitution), which would keep the US SC from having to hear the case.

So, both to promote judicial economy and to show respect to state judicial systems, almost all cases must go through the final level of state appeal (whatever it may be) before the US SC will even consider getting involved.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Like taking illegal drugs?

Sure, if you cut of the part where I said "But sexual acts", you can make that argument. That was strange, Bucc, unless I'm missing your point.

For the record, I don't equate sexual acts with taking illegal drugs, nor do I believe that everything done in the privacy of a home should be out of bounds for the law. Nowhere did I attempt to make that statement, and if it was inferred from my sentance, I was in err.