Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Feather · 03-27-2003, 10:05 AM

Scalia scares the shit out of me. Given the 9th Amendment, his statements are an act of Doublethink worthy of the most ardent fan of Big Brother.

Why hasn't anybody made the point that in order to actually faithfully enforce this law the State of Texas would have to place cameras and other evidence gathering devices in every single bedroom? Or at least in places that have unrestricted access to every possible private place.

crownboy · 03-27-2003, 01:13 PM

From the msn article:

Quote:

Breyer notes that during World War I people also thought it "immoral" to "teach German in schools. � Immoral is a hard line to draw."

"There is a rational basis," insists Rosenthal.

"You're not giving us a rational basis," snaps Breyer.

"The rational basis," says Scalia, "is that the state thinks it's immoral. Like bigamy or adultery."

"Or teaching German," grins Breyer.

An excellent point by Breyer. States also thought it was immoral for blacks to be full citizens at one time (hell, it was enshrined in the constitution!). With that logic, his pal Clarence Thomas should still be shinning his shoes instead of being his equal.

BibleBelted · 03-27-2003, 01:42 PM

crownboy's post reminds of something (off-topic) which I've often wondered about - maybe Stephen or someone else knows the answer (because I don't, at least not for sure):

Has Clarence Thomas ever, even once ruled differently than Scalia?

crownboy · 03-27-2003, 02:44 PM

Well, of course he has BibleBelted . They vote with each other a high percentage of the time (like 85%), but not exclusively

. One prominent case I can think of is the Playboy case, where the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK for playboy TV to air movies during the daytime, when kids could possibly see them. Scalia was in the minority (against Playboy), and Thomas was in the majority.

Grumpy · 03-27-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
It looks like the lawyer who argued for the State of Texas screwed the pooch in a big way.

Hey you! Stop that pooch screwing! Don't you know it's illegal?

I liked this exchange from the Slate article:

Quote:

Souter wonders why Texas doesn't limit sodomy among heterosexuals. "Because it can lead to marriage and procreation," says Rosenthal.

If this fellow is procreating through sodomy, then he really needs more practice.

abe smith · 03-31-2003, 06:39 AM

.... for the cross-refs. Stephen. I'll paste the copies into my now-superseded earlier edition of Tribe's _Am. Constitutional Law_ after*Bowers*. Glad posters here this thread don't think I'm fussing in teapot...
There's another matter I have to discuss, about Massachusetts city's census2003 form (I received last week.); to which , on the threat of losing my VOTING privileges, I was told to specify my "gender".: either "M" for "Male" OR "F" for "Female". FRchrisesake.
I haven't quite sorted this matter down compactly enuf (a neat-compact French egg) to lay out here at EyeEye yet; altho I've written about it (cert mail/ receipt) to the Atty General of Mass. {cc to Professor Tribe & to AJ David Souter....} Sheesh! What next!

03-31-2003, 06:39 AM	#16
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Thanks .... for the cross-refs. Stephen. I'll paste the copies into my now-superseded earlier edition of Tribe's _Am. Constitutional Law_ afterBowers. Glad posters here this thread don't think I'm fussing in teapot... There's another matter I have to discuss, about Massachusetts city's census2003 form (I received last week.); to which , on the threat of losing my VOTING privileges, I was told to specify my "gender".: either "M" for "Male" OR "F" for "Female". FRchrisesake. I haven't quite sorted this matter down compactly enuf (a neat-compact French egg) to lay out here at EyeEye yet; altho I've written about it (cert mail/ receipt) to the Atty General of Mass. {cc to Professor Tribe & to AJ David Souter....} Sheesh! What next!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2003, 10:05 AM	#11
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Scalia scares the shit out of me. Given the 9th Amendment, his statements are an act of Doublethink worthy of the most ardent fan of Big Brother. Why hasn't anybody made the point that in order to actually faithfully enforce this law the State of Texas would have to place cameras and other evidence gathering devices in every single bedroom? Or at least in places that have unrestricted access to every possible private place.

03-27-2003, 01:42 PM	#13
BibleBelted Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 891	crownboy's post reminds of something (off-topic) which I've often wondered about - maybe Stephen or someone else knows the answer (because I don't, at least not for sure): Has Clarence Thomas ever, even once ruled differently than Scalia?

03-27-2003, 02:44 PM	#14
crownboy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: NYC, New York Posts: 114	Well, of course he has BibleBelted . They vote with each other a high percentage of the time (like 85%), but not exclusively . One prominent case I can think of is the Playboy case, where the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK for playboy TV to air movies during the daytime, when kids could possibly see them. Scalia was in the minority (against Playboy), and Thomas was in the majority.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.