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. What's the purpose of that question?

>> 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