Did Rush have an influence?
- Tocqueville3
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:39 am
- Location: Mississippi
- Bixby17
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:10 pm
Why, what is the point of it? Will that make me happy? Or more fufilled? Or puff my ego? It isn't likely to persuade anyone because that is the nature of legal arguments. There is no *right* answer, there is just defendable answers and points to refute. I have as much interest in crafting a legal argument for sport as I do attending another endless conference call in my life.Appa23 wrote: Well, I think that there might be a point "arguing" it. Rather than simply making a blanket statement, maybe you should provide some cites for your statement. In other words, you could make a legal argument as to how no precedent was followed in the cited decisions (rather than simply that the Court followed precedent with which you disagree.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Constitutional law is a farce and a fiction. Made up ways to justify results based on quicksand. Rights schmites. There is no such thing as a right. It is all theoretical constructs we have created over history to try to get us to all get along and to ditch things like kings and queens telling us what to do. And we are all good with that because it beats people going around randomly clubbing each other and taking stuff.
All of the Supremes have goofy opinions because Con law is absolutely absurd. Some justices pretend that their points of view are more principled than others, but it is all picking and choosing and getting whatever result they want.
- TheCalvinator24
- Posts: 4884
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
- Location: Wyoming
- Contact:
I believe there could be Conservative Activists, although the terms should be an oxymoron.Bixby17 wrote:You believe that there are only activists for liberal causes because you don't see the conservative activism.
I just don't agree that Scalia, Alito, or Roberts is one. I also don't think Thomas is.
Did you agree with the Supremes in the overturning of sodomy laws?
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore
- ne1410s
- Posts: 2961
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:26 pm
- Location: The Friendly Confines
- Bixby17
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:10 pm
I think that all the case law relating to and including the case of the overturning of sodomy laws is all garbage and sophistry. That case is garbage and sophistry and the case it overruled was garbage and sophistry.TheCalvinator24 wrote:I believe there could be Conservative Activists, although the terms should be an oxymoron.Bixby17 wrote:You believe that there are only activists for liberal causes because you don't see the conservative activism.
I just don't agree that Scalia, Alito, or Roberts is one. I also don't think Thomas is.
Did you agree with the Supremes in the overturning of sodomy laws?
That being said, as it relates to these cases, I'm glad that the sophists supporting consenting adults doing gross stuff to each other in private won. Because I could give a crap, and don't particularly have anything against gay peoples.
Good thing all that time, effort, money was spent regarding a case of a law that was rarely enforced but was really going to screw over two horny guys. You know, because these are such important things to for some of the greatest minds in America (oh and Thomas) to decide.
Interestingly, some of the more activist of the Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas stuff relates to things that support business interests. You know, they are all about the democratic process and supporting what legislatures want to do unless er uh, it ends up hurting businesses. (Though there are exceptions to this--Scalia-Thomas in particular can come up with some off the wall points of view).
In other words, as this thread indicates, I feel pretty low as it relates to our public institutions of governance. Whoever is elected Prez can't fix everything because we are totally *ed, and we just have to hope they dont * it up any more. And then all I hope for is a Supreme Court that doesn't regress issues of privacy and liberty so much that I have to start wearing a burqa or something if some state legislature filled with mouthbreathers, boobs and idiots decides that would be a good idea because the flying spaghetti monster or their pastor or tiny voice of conscious advised them that way.
I don't talk politics much because I'm in complete despair about it. And it makes me sad. I didn't used to be that way, but I just had such bad dealings with parties, politics and parties, that my expectations are below low.
And with the limited time on my planet, I'd just rather chalk that stuff up as Things That Are Totally Screwed Beyond Fixing, and try to live my life not thinking too much about it.
I vote, and my husband donates to candidates who he thinks will screw him over if he doesn't donate. I don't donate to candidates any more because all that does is given them permission to call me during dinner time and send five tons of junk mail in my mail box.
I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but just bleh.
- fantine33
- Posts: 1299
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:15 pm
Bixby17 wrote:That being said, as it relates to these cases, I'm glad that the sophists supporting consenting adults doing gross stuff to each other in private won. Because I could give a crap, and don't particularly have anything against gay peoples.
Good thing all that time, effort, money was spent regarding a case of a law that was rarely enforced but was really going to screw over two horny guys. You know, because these are such important things to for some of the greatest minds in America (oh and Thomas) to decide.
I'm not up on my blue laws, but isn't sodomy considered any type of sex that's not the good ol' generic baby makin' kind?
- Bixby17
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:10 pm
The case that Cal was referring to was a Texas statute that prohibited same sex oral or anal sex. Prior to this law being rule unconstitutional, there were statutes in various states on the books that prevented oral and anal sex between consenting same sex/different sex peoples.fantine33 wrote:Bixby17 wrote:That being said, as it relates to these cases, I'm glad that the sophists supporting consenting adults doing gross stuff to each other in private won. Because I could give a crap, and don't particularly have anything against gay peoples.
Good thing all that time, effort, money was spent regarding a case of a law that was rarely enforced but was really going to screw over two horny guys. You know, because these are such important things to for some of the greatest minds in America (oh and Thomas) to decide.
I'm not up on my blue laws, but isn't sodomy considered any type of sex that's not the good ol' generic baby makin' kind?
The statutes were rarely used because generally people engaged in that sort of thing tend to be private about it. But some people in our country so preoccupied with other people' sexual relations can sleep better at night knowing such laws are on the books.
- fantine33
- Posts: 1299
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:15 pm
Thanks for the explanation, that also explains why Cal brought it up seemingly out of the blue.Bixby17 wrote:The case that Cal was referring to was a Texas statute that prohibited same sex oral or anal sex. Prior to this law being rule unconstitutional, there were statutes in various states on the books that prevented oral and anal sex between consenting same sex/different sex peoples.
The statutes were rarely used because generally people engaged in that sort of thing tend to be private about it. But some people in our country so preoccupied with other people' sexual relations can sleep better at night knowing such laws are on the books.
I'm either thinking of other state laws (I don't think they're federal) or maybe the military. I seem to recall some case a few years ago where somebody in the army was brought up on charges for oral sex with his wife.
I'm sure Rush would love the bend "his" thread has taken. Ha!
- peacock2121
- Posts: 18451
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am
- Sir_Galahad
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
- Location: In The Heartland
I forwarded the thread to him. I know that he is out sick until Monday so he wouldn't be able to comment until then.peacock2121 wrote:I'm thinking Rush would just be thrilled that he is being talked about.
He would use this thread to prove some point about liberals.
You would probably get a kick out of that.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
- Bixby17
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:10 pm
The reason I am guessing Cal brought it up is that some of the biggest judicial activism from the left has come from the area of personal liberty and what things the government can and can't do to infringe on that liberty.fantine33 wrote:Thanks for the explanation, that also explains why Cal brought it up seemingly out of the blue.Bixby17 wrote:The case that Cal was referring to was a Texas statute that prohibited same sex oral or anal sex. Prior to this law being rule unconstitutional, there were statutes in various states on the books that prevented oral and anal sex between consenting same sex/different sex peoples.
The statutes were rarely used because generally people engaged in that sort of thing tend to be private about it. But some people in our country so preoccupied with other people' sexual relations can sleep better at night knowing such laws are on the books.
I'm either thinking of other state laws (I don't think they're federal) or maybe the military. I seem to recall some case a few years ago where somebody in the army was brought up on charges for oral sex with his wife.
I'm sure Rush would love the bend "his" thread has taken. Ha!
The Supremes overruled cases involving anti-miscegenation laws, married and single people acquiring contraceptives. or making it a crime to sell contraceptives, and then Roe v Wade and a zillion cases trying to figure out what restrictions are constitutionally ok with that.
There was quite a lot of sophistry used to get to the point of saying that the government can't force a woman to give birth to every child conceived.
Then there were the gay cases, one that was upheld and the more recent one that overruled the gay cases. (The local DA who just recently resigned in shame was the guy that decided he was the best one to argue this in front of the Supremes. It was a joke).
Basically, most of those who think the gay cases are wrongly decided want the courts to overrule Roe as well. And maybe they aren't happy with the contraceptive cases either or whatever else.
Basically, there is a ton of Con Law that is a disingenous intellectual mess, and line of cases pre and post Roe are part of that. The more recent cases are all written from the perspective of figuring out how they can either dismantle or preserve Roe and get whatever public policy point of view that they like.
- peacock2121
- Posts: 18451
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am
I really would!Sir_Galahad wrote:I forwarded the thread to him. I know that he is out sick until Monday so he wouldn't be able to comment until then.peacock2121 wrote:I'm thinking Rush would just be thrilled that he is being talked about.
He would use this thread to prove some point about liberals.
You would probably get a kick out of that.
It would make me..........
laugh and laugh.
- PlacentiaSoccerMom
- Posts: 8134
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
- Location: Placentia, CA
- Contact:
- TheCalvinator24
- Posts: 4884
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
- Location: Wyoming
- Contact:
There was also a pretty solid line of cases saying that privacy protections didn't apply to homosexual activity. The Libs on the Supreme Court ignored the principles of Judicial Restraint and of stare decisis on that one.Bixby17 wrote:The case that Cal was referring to was a Texas statute that prohibited same sex oral or anal sex. Prior to this law being rule unconstitutional, there were statutes in various states on the books that prevented oral and anal sex between consenting same sex/different sex peoples.
The statutes were rarely used because generally people engaged in that sort of thing tend to be private about it. But some people in our country so preoccupied with other people' sexual relations can sleep better at night knowing such laws are on the books.
I think I basically agree with this. However, I also believe that attempting to undo the Judical Activism of the past is not itself a form of Judicial Activism.Bixby17 wrote:Basically, there is a ton of Con Law that is a disingenous intellectual mess, and line of cases pre and post Roe are part of that. The more recent cases are all written from the perspective of figuring out how they can either dismantle or preserve Roe and get whatever public policy point of view that they like.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore
- Sir_Galahad
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:47 pm
- Location: In The Heartland
You're so sexy when you talk like that.Bixby17 wrote:
The Supremes overruled cases involving anti-miscegenation laws, married and single people acquiring contraceptives. or making it a crime to sell contraceptives, and then Roe v Wade and a zillion cases trying to figure out what restrictions are constitutionally ok with that.
There was quite a lot of sophistry used to get to the point of saying that the government can't force a woman to give birth to every child conceived.
Then there were the gay cases, one that was upheld and the more recent one that overruled the gay cases. (The local DA who just recently resigned in shame was the guy that decided he was the best one to argue this in front of the Supremes. It was a joke).
Basically, most of those who think the gay cases are wrongly decided want the courts to overrule Roe as well. And maybe they aren't happy with the contraceptive cases either or whatever else.
Basically, there is a ton of Con Law that is a disingenous intellectual mess, and line of cases pre and post Roe are part of that. The more recent cases are all written from the perspective of figuring out how they can either dismantle or preserve Roe and get whatever public policy point of view that they like.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
Perhaps the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about...
- minimetoo26
- Royal Pain In Everyone's Ass
- Posts: 7874
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:51 am
- Location: No Fixed Address