Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!yahoobb218120102004.bbtec.NET!not-for-mail From: Eric Takabayashi Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Ok, I was wrong about the Supreme Court Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:54:40 +0900 Lines: 163 Message-ID: <3EFC68C1.A6343FB@yahoo.co.jp> References: <73fde4f0.0306261109.5882e6d5@posting.google.com> <73fde4f0.0306261807.d2cf6f3@posting.google.com> <3EFC6295.434CA1A1@yahoo.co.jp> <3EFC656C.25106BA5@yahoo.co.jp> Reply-To: etakajp@yahoo.co.jp NNTP-Posting-Host: yahoobb218120102004.bbtec.net (218.120.102.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1056729337 30699929 218.120.102.4 (16 [138107]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: ja,en Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:1549 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 wrote in message > >>>>>> news:... > >>>>>>> On 26 Jun 2003 12:09:10 -0700, worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.) > >>>>>>> belched > >>>>>>> the alphabet and kept on going with: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Kevin Gowen" wrote in message > >>>>>>>> news:... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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