Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[DinoDoc]

Crap. I'd like a real answer, not a kneejerk assumption, to the question I asked and I can not even find the opinion online.

[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.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Crap. I'd like a real answer, not a kneejerk assumption, to the question I asked and I can not even find the opinion online.

I will bet you $1,000 dollars I am absolutely correct. Think about the folks on the court. Do you honestly think the three I mentioned would be on the other side?

[MichaeltheGreat]

It takes a while before they post it - it should be up within a week. I may be able to find it on Westlaw at work later today though.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Lorizael
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.

I agree. Hence my comment on the court of public opinion. The problem with this is, however, that it may induce the justices to make a ruling contrary to the right of self determination (Which was the case 17 years ago).

[MichaeltheGreat]

CNN website confirms the votes:

Kennedy writing for the majority, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist dissenting, and the rest concurring with Kennedy's result, but not joining his opinion.

Plato - the reversal from Bowers v. Hardwick isn't surprising, the only reason that case passed scrutiny is the dumbasses had the door to their house open, had just an unlocked screendoor in place, and the officer who caught them in the act was properly there serving a warrant on one of the parties, so the facts of the case didn't really extend to fully private activity, and for example, obtaining a warrant for intrusive surveillance or other means of determining if the sodomy statutes were being broken.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I may be able to find it on Westlaw at work later today though.

I'd be grateful if you could. I'm especially interested in the dissent(s).

[PLATO]

Mtg, well that figures doesn't it? Whenever the Supremes don't really want to get involved, they just make a narrow ruling. It would seem that the country would be better served if they limited their reviews to cases where broader rulings could be made. It would probably reduce their workload in the long run anyway. While I wasn't there, my bet would be that the founders didn't set up SCOTUS to split hairs.

[Asher]

I hardly call this splitting hairs.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Asher
I hardly call this splitting hairs.

Oh I agree. I was refering to upholding a law where the house was unlocked and the cop was there legitamately and yada yada. The point was that they could have used that opportunity to make a broad ruling on privacy and not a narrow one on that situation.

[Lorizael]

Actually, they didn't setup SCOTUS to do what it's doing at all. Originally, its main task was just going to be settling disputes between states.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The breath of the ruling, on privacy basis, rather than equal protection, will not only end the law in 4 states on homosexual sodomy, but also in the 9 other states that had all sodomy, even between husband and wife, outlawed.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Originally, its main task was just going to be settling disputes between states.

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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
The breath of the ruling, on privacy basis, rather than equal protection, will not only end the law in 4 states on homosexual sodomy, but also in the 9 other states that had all sodomy, even between husband and wife, outlawed.

:shock:

I hadn't realized that was the implication...I thought this referred solely to laws targeting homosexual behavior.

This is HUGE for gays.