Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Because Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court of the
> United States, not Kevin Gowen, the final court of appeal. See _Marbury v.
> Madison_ for more information on this.

So how or why can you disagree?

> > Should that
> > decision have been made or not?
>
> If you would have read what I wrote below, you would know the answer to that
> question.
>
> >> 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.
>
> What's to reconcile? The decisions of the Supreme Court are the law of the
> land. The fact that I disagree with the decision doesn't change that fact.
>
> >>>> 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
>
> --
> 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