Lawrence v. Texas

[A18]

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.

[A18]

John Paul Stevens was a pioneer in gay rights. Hence his greatness.

Earl Warren was a pioneer in making sh*t up. Hence his greatness.

That's a bad argument.

[A18]

The first two are not supported by the text of the Constitution.

[A18]

Option 1.

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

[A18]

I'm sure he can read both what I wrote and the Constitution. My guess is he's read neither.

[A18]

There is no right to liberty in the Constitution. Kennedy is easily one of the dumbest justices on that court.

[A18]

Liberty is freedom, as Bono said. If you can't deprive someone of liberty, you can't deprive such person of freedom.

However, there is obviously no right to liberty in the Constitution.

EDIT: And Justice Blackmun was an idiot with a split personality and inferiority complex. Who cares what he had to say?

[A18]

A fifth amendment right to liberty would supercede the commerce power of Congress. Not that it matters, because it doesn't exist.

[A18]

Correct, so quit talking about how the government can't deprive someone of liberty just because you consider it arbitrary. It doesn't say arbitrarily, which is nothing but a matter of policy, it says without due process of law, and we've already gone through what due process means.

[A18]

You were using arbitrarily to denote a test of legitimate government interests. And the legitimate government interests are those you consider legitimate.

[A18]

The right to be alone should include all drugs, not just marijuana for medical purposes. You're inconsistent.

That, and you don't understand there's no right to liberty in the Constitution, and that it actually specifically states liberty can be taken away with due process.

[A18]

The fifth amendment supercedes the commerce power of Congress. Thus, Congress can not regulate commerce if it takes away liberty without due process.

Due process of law is being treated in accordance with the law, rather than an arbitrary standard of the executive power. That is the true, historical, factual meaning. Your version of due process of law is a joke, because it's all subjective preference whether a law is rational or not.

[A18]

Let's put it this way. Are laws against consumption of cocaine unconstitutional because of the right to be let alone, or are you inconsistent?

[A18]

Not surprising that 64.1% of voters in this poll are idiots.