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.

> 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