Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Cash wrote:
> >>> On 26 Jun 2003 19:07:12 -0700, worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.)
> >>> belched
> >>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael Cash <mikecash@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
> >>>> news:<bfjmfvst2d6gcsfjcp40uei14670oulb5g@4ax.com>...
> >>>>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.)
> >>>>> belched
> >>>>> the alphabet and kept on going with:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Kevin Gowen" <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:<bdf175$shppc$1@ID-105084.news.dfncis.de>...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> action and today it struck down a law banning gay sex.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> And the problem is....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not "problem". "Point".
> >>>>>
> >>>> It's not polite to point.
> >>>
> >>> Good thing. I'm not polite.
> >>
> >> Neither am I.
> >>
> >>    To answer John's question, there are problems with this decision,
> >
> > Never mind your arguments below. The decision was the decision. Do
> > you accept it as law or not?
>
> Of course I do.

Why, if you think there are problems with the decision? Should that decision
have been made or not?

> What's the purpose of that question?

I'd like to see you reconcile your view of the validity of the law and the
Supreme Court with your arguments against them.

> >> although that was not the point I was making with my original post.
> >> I'm still reading and digesting it but some things have stuck out so
> >> far. First, I don't think certiorari should have even been granted.
> >> I think that this case did not raise a federal question and that the
> >> two men involved should have used the legislative process of Texas
> >> to right what they felt was an unjust law. I hasten to add that this
> >> issue is one that has been dying on the vine for years. Before 1961,
> >> all states and D.C. had sodomy statutes. By _Bowers_ in 1986, they
> >> were only in 24 states and D.C., and only 13 states at the time this
> >> case was filed. This was all accomplished through state legislatures
> >>    and courts. First, I think it should be noted that O'Connor,
> >> while concurring, does
> >> not join the majority in overturning _Bowers_, thus _Bowers_ was
> >> overturned by 5-4 rather than 6-3 as been reported.
> >>    As far as Scalia's dissenting opinion is concerned, it rightly
> >> points out that the overturning of _Bowers_ is ludicrous. I quote:
> >> "Though there is discussion of “fundamental proposition[s],” ante,
> >> at 4, and “fundamental decisions,” ibid. nowhere does the Court’s
> >> opinion
> >> declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due
> >> Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of
> >> review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual
> >> sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the
> >> outcome of _Bowers_, the Court leaves strangely untouched its
> >> central legal conclusion: “[R]espondent would have us announce . . .
> >> a fundamental right to en-gage in homosexual sodomy. This we are
> >> quite unwilling to do.” 478 U. S., at 191. Instead the Court simply
> >> describes petitioners’ conduct as “an exercise of their
> >> liberty”?which it undoubtedly is?and proceeds to apply an unheard-of
> >> form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching
> >>    implications beyond this case." Since the majority cannot
> >> overturn _Bowers_ on legal grounds, it has to turn to public
> >> opinion. The majority makes an appeal to the widespread public
> >> criticism of _Bowers_ as a reason for overruling it, yet in the
> >> abortion case of _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, the widespread
> >> public criticism of _Roe v. Wade_ is cited as a reason for upholding
> >>    that case. A results-oriented approach to stare decisis has been
> >> set forth. I'm with Scalia on this one. The majority talks about
> >> liberty, but there
> >> is no right to liberty, and even the majority agrees that no
> >> fundamental right was violated in this case i.e. a right to commit
> >> sodomy. I think this excerpt from the dissent sums up my thoughts
> >> rather well: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against
> >> homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through
> >> normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other
> >> morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade
> >> its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That
> >> homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is
> >> attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining
> >> States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But
> >> persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s
> >> views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I
> >> would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts?or, for
> >> that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them?than I would
> >> forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the
> >> range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be
> >> stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right”
> >> by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true
> >> that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
> >> proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that
> >> happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the
> >>    premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the
> >> people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best. The
> >>    opinions can be viewed in PDF format at
> >> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02slipopinion.html The sodomy
> >> case is _Lawrence v. Texas_, and the two affirmative action cases
> >> are _Gratz_ and _Grutter_.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kevin Gowen
> >> "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
> >> thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick
> >> Gephardt (D-MO), presidential candidate
>
> --
> Kevin Gowen
> "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong
> thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." Dick Gephardt
> (D-MO), presidential candidate