Supreme Court Overrules Texas Sodomy Law, 6-3

[Theophylact]

Reverses Bowers v. Hardwick (the Georgia case). Story here; syllabus here.

The decision was not a narrow technical one based on Texas's discriminating against homosexual sodomy; it said that

Bowers' rationale does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS concluded that (1) the fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, and (2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by due process. That analysis should have controlled Bowers, and it controls here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled.

[Epidemic]

I guess the only problem I have with this is that states should have rights to do what they consider to be appropriate. I personally think that such laws are stupid, close minded , and generally trying to regulate morality. However, I should think that the people who live there should be able to make all the stupid laws they want I kinda thought that was the law of the land.

[Chuckiechan]

A great victory for the IRS!

Edit: And the RAII!

[Theophylact]

Epidemic, Justice Thomas agrees with you that Texas (and indeed, Congress) has a right to pass stupid laws like this. But that's because he doesn't think you have a Constitutional right to privacy:

I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. 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 member 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 valuable law enforcement resources. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 1.

[Epidemic]

That constitutional right is stepped on constantly by federal state and local. you cant use cocain in your house nor heroin. You must wear you seat belt and helmets on motorcycle.

You cant even commit suicide in your own home legally

This is well worne ground here. The government has been able to legislate morality for a long time. Democrats and Republicans are more than glad to step in on their own crusades.

[Theophylact]

Scalia, on the other hand, foams at the mouth.

[M_Six]

Speaking of stupid laws.

Anytime an elected offical proposes something so entirely idiotic as this, he or she should be tossed out of Congress on his or her ear. These morons have no sense of the gravity of Constitutional Amendments. The Constitution is not something you use to express your own personal beliefs. It is a sacred document meant to guide us in creating laws.

[Epidemic]

i would disagree with that amendment.

Because it undermines states rights.

[Knothead]

Originally posted by Theophylact
Scalia, on the other hand, foams at the mouth.

Darnit, the link is all complicated to access, but I heard about it on the radio....Justice Scalia going on about, basically, "where will it all end, next thing you know, we'll be deliberating the legitimacy of beastiality... moan, moan".....

Scalia is famous for this type of idiocy. Way back when, there was this strip club called the Kit-Kat Klub, or something. A stupid little strip-tease bar that the local authorities shut down.

So anyways, the owners took the case all the way to the Supreme Court!

Basically, the Court upheld the local's opinions .... but the REALLY scary commentary was rendered by Scalia, who weighed in with the opinion that, basically, "where does it stop? Roman orgies with young, naked boys and nonstop sexual perversion running rampant, and...and..." not a true quote, but as close as I can remember....

What struck me is, how on earth did this guy turn a strip-club bust into a Roman orgy in his mind?

Moreover, what a drag that we have a so-called "Justice" on the highest court in the land, using such insipid logic!

[M_Six]

He is a conservative, nominated by a conservative. You can hardly expect a liberal viewpoint. I just hope none of the justices retire while Bush is in office. His nominees for several benches have been radical right-wingers.