Lawrence v. Texas (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 04:05:49 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Lawrence v. Texas (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Was it the correct decision?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No, because I'm a freedom hating prude who thinks the government should arrest consenting adults for what they do by themselves
 
#3
No, because it wasn't constitutionally sound
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 48

Author Topic: Lawrence v. Texas  (Read 5132 times)
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


« on: July 09, 2005, 08:39:37 PM »


Great. Another liberal who knows nothing about constitutional law, but just supports blatantly activist decisions because he likes the result.

Why are you talking as if he can't read what you're writing?  That's just weird.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,866
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2005, 05:49:26 AM »

Hugo Black? Perhaps the best justice to serve on that court? That's some powerful crack. That KKK member supported FDR's court packing scheme in 1937, pretended the New Deal was constitutional, and started this ridiculous notion that the Bill of Rights is incorporated against the states by the privileges and immunities clause.

Nclib and 'Pym Fortuyn' are two illiterate jokes who base nothing on an actual legal argument of any kind and just support blatantly activist court rulings to get the results they want.

I'll take that as an admission that the ruling was complete bunk.

Being the lone dissenter doesn't make you an activist. Quit commenting on stuff you know nothing about.

Why did you put my name in quotes? Do you think I'm not a real poster or something?

Yes I'm sure conservatives have a wonderful "legal arguement", its the bible, not the constitution. And I hope you guys don't oppose this decision because of the marriage issue. The 2 are seperate, it was Scalia who brought it up in his dissent.

If you oppose Lawrence then that means you want police to break into people's homes in the middle of the night and throw them in jail for having sex. The case had nothing to do with marriage. Maybe in the future it could be used as a basis for that, but obviously gay marriage will be banned for a long time so I don't know why this libertarian ruling got the right so upset, unless it was a campaign ploy.

This ruling is not libertarian, for libertarianism requires decisions to be taken at the lowest government level possible.
You just show your ignorance by making comments like that.

Actually, your definition is extreme libertarianism.  That is like saying liberalism is by definition communist immorality or conservatism pro-market authoritarianism.  There are moderate stances that do not necessarily involve the least amount of government possible, and the definition of "least amount of government" possible varies heavily.

But fundamentally, I agree; this isn't necessarily a libertarian decision.  Holding the opinion that anti-sodomy laws should be voluntarily repealed is, on the other hand, one.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.