Supremes Uphold Right to Gay Sex!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Interesting that their job is to interpret the constitution and that they reversed themselves from 17 years ago. Did the constitution change and I miss it or are the Supremes more subject to the court of public opinion than we would all like?

Any serious student of the Court knows this. While the Court doesn't sway with the breeze, they do consider public senitiment in their decisions. When they changed their mind on the execution of the mentally disabled last year, they said that part of the reason was because what society considers cruel and unsual has changed (I'm heavily paraphrasing).

It is is no accident that Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, the striking down of the Death Penalty (albeit temporarily), and many other liberal decisions happened when they happened.

[Lefty Scaevola]

"are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,"

5 of the Justices are agreeing with this very braod privacy opinion. One, O'Conner, concured with the result on othe grounds. I suspect that language pretty much ends state involvement in private consesual sex between competant adults.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by 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.

Try reading the federalist papers and there oppositions treatise. Exactly what the framers were thinking was put down in great detail.

[Asher]

What's with the fascination of what people thought hundreds of years ago? I'm confused as to why people think it matters?

The world and society has changed since then...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
"are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,"

Did this just set up a legal basis for same sex marriage? I think I feel the ground shaking.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
What's with the fascination of what people thought hundreds of years ago?

Yeah. I like relying on the plain meaning of the words rather than incomplete records in making interpretations of the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Not so. The 11th stands for something else entirely. It has nothing to do with state v. state disputs.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Did this just set up a legal basis for same sex marriage?

No, marriage is an insitution regualted by the state, for, among other reaseons, economic and child rearing, a very much different animal than private consensual sex.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yeah. I like relying on the plain meaning of the words rather than incomplete records in making interpretations of the law.

The problem is that meaning of words change over time and are subject to interpretation, like "cruel and unusual" with regards to punishment.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Asher
What's with the fascination of what people thought hundreds of years ago? I'm confused as to why people think it matters?

The world and society has changed since then...

Well Asher, The US was founded on certian principles as to governments relationship to citizen. These shouldn't change over time. And it was 200+ years BTW. The fasination is how those societal changes interact with those principles.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The problem is that meaning of words change over time and are subject to interpretation,

There is less room for interpretation and judicial acrobatics than relying on incomplete records and trying to divine original intent from that.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Did this just set up a legal basis for same sex marriage? I think I feel the ground shaking.

I'm afraid that's a bit of wishful thinking, Che. Maybe someday... I'm just itching to see what happens when a state challenges a gay couple married in Ontario.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
First they uphold affirmative action

Perhaps you're confused. They upheld the concept that a school could use AA to enhance diversity (which they see as a good thing to do) by a narrow margin but totally slashed the stupid prejudicial manner in which it was done by 6-3. It wasnt a total victory for the anti-AA types but it was more of a victory for them than the pro-AA types.

Back to the topic

This is an important ruling, especially since the balance has gone strongly in favor of privacy vs the states rights to enact laws that might be deemed intrusive.

I'm trying to think of obvious effects of the ruling and the one that comes to mind is marijuana. Is it intrusive to be arrested for smoking dope in the privacy of your own home?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I'm just itching to see what happens when a state challenges a gay couple married in Ontario.

Why wouldn't that get slapped down for the same reasons Lefty stated?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Here is the opinions in PDF

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

The majority ruled on substansive due process/privacy grounds. O'Conners's opinion is on equal protection. The dissenters not only talk about the issues, but the hazards of overturning precents, Noting that many opinions on abortion after Roe v Wade relied more on prcedent than upon reasoning on the issues previously decided.